Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr. Harold Walker, in the
Chair]

PETITION

Animal Experiments

Mr. Roland Boyes: It is my honour to present a petition containing in excess of 60,000 signatures from all parts of Great Britain. The petition could have been even greater because, according to opinion polls, 80 per cent. of the population are against the use of animals for experiments for warfare purposes. The overwhelming majority of people have expressed that view several times and are extremely hostile to the use of animals for warfare experimentation.
The experiments are cruel and the animals, if they are lucky they die quickly, otherwise they die horrendous, painful and often lingering deaths. The vast majority of the experiments are commissioned by the Government and carried out at the Government's own research establishment at Porton Down, but the work is often contracted out to other institutions which carry out equally cruel experiments on animals. Such experiments are a disgrace in a civilised society and must be stopped immediately because the results are of no value. Human beings have no right to use other sentients for the purposes of animal experimentation for warfare. I, along with the other 60,000 signatories agree with that view.
To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 28 April]

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 1

PERSONS AUTHORISED TO PASS AND STAMP EQUIPMENT

Amendment proposed [28 April]: No. 66, in page 1, line 5, leave out the words 'Secretary of State', and insert the words
`local weights and measures authority for the area in which an applicant for a licence has his head office or his registered office'.—[Mr. Illsley.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 1, line 5, after 'State' insert
`,after consultation with any local weights and measures authority appearing to him to be concerned,'.—[Mr. Wiggin.]

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'installer or repairer'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
No. 30, in page 1, line 11, after 'determine', insert `but a licence may not be granted to any person employed by a manufacturer, installer or repairer of equipment to which section 11 of the 1985 Act applies.'.
No. 41, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
'(4A) the secretary of State may by order—

(a) extend the application of this section to persons who carry on business as installers or repairers of equipment to which section 11 of the 1985 Act applies; and
(b) provide that this section shall have effect in relation to such persons with such modifications as may be specified in the order;

and the power to make such an order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'

Mr. Wiggin: The amendment has been moved at the request of the Association of County Councils to allow the Government to take a longer-term view before including installers and repairers in the Bill.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 39, in page 1, line 10, after 'satisfies', insert
`the Secretary of State as to the matters mentioned in subsection (1A) below and complies with'.—[Mr. Wiggin.]

No. 40 page 1, line 15, at end insert—
'(1A) The matters referred to in subsection (1)(b) above are—

(a) the adequacy of the quality assurance system which is to be adopted by the applicant;
(b) the adequacy of the procedures which are to be so adopted for ensuring that any equipment which is passed and stamped by the applicant conforms to or complies with such of the following as are applicable to it, namely—



(i) any pattern in respect of which a certificate of approval under section 12 of the 1985 Act is in force; and
(ii) the requirements of regulations under section 15 of that Act (including in particular the requirement that the equipment should fall within the prescribed limits of error); and

(c) the traceability to national measurement standards of any testing equipment which is to be used by the applicant.'

No. 41, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
'(4A) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) extend the application of this section to persons who carry on business as installers or repairers of equipment to which section 11 of the 1985 Act applies; and
(b) provide that this section shall have effect in relation to such persons with such modifications as may be specified in the order;

and the power to make such an order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'—[Mr. Wiggin.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ian Gow: I should like to address the Committee on the momentous issue whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. We may note in passing that even though this measure is of massive consequence, there is not a single representative of the Liberal party in his place.
The Committee has become accustomed to the Liberal party proclaiming to be the champion of the customer, but when the customer's interests are being debated we note the characteristic absence of the Liberal party. Naturally, I defer to the views of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and, having drawn the attention of the Committee to the matter, I shall resume my seat.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

PASSING AND STAMPING OF EQUIPMENT BY AUTHORISED PERSONS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Gow: I do not wish to detain the Committee but I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, who is as sound upon this as he is upon all issues, to a notable feature of the clause. Mercifully, no reference has to be made to those who sit in grand offices in Brussels. Even our right hon. and learned Friend who was recently knighted, Sir Leon Brittan, has no power to intervene in relation to clause 2. That is of great satisfaction to me and to every hon. Member of the Committee.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The clause should be examined a little before we allow it to pass. What exactly do we mean by an "authorised person"? Would the term include not only those who are authorized by licence under section 1 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985, but people put forward by consumer organisations?
Does the person authorised by licence have a right of access to the appropriate Minister of a Government

Department, thereby extending the normal concept of what is meant by an authorised person? Many consumer groups that are concerned with aspects of weights and measures equipment could offer useful advice, but are rarely consulted. One of the worrying aspects of life under the Government is that power, influence and advice have moved from the ordinary people to various official bodies. Those bodies are dominated by a Government who, over the past 10 years, have shown their willingness to intervene in such matters.
Subsection (3) says:
after the word 'passed', in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words `by an inspector' and for the words 'an inspector' there shall be substituted the words 'the inspector'".
My hon. Friends will recognise the problems that will arise there. The words "the inspector" specifically mean that there will be only one type of inspector when, surely, the whole thrust of modern democracy is to allow bodies, such as local authorities, to put forward inspectors.
I live under two local authorities—Strathclyde, which deals with massive regional affairs, and my district council of Renfrew. Both are perfectly equipped to put forward an official or a councillor. I should like advice about subsection (3) and about the whole Bill. The subsection says "the inspector" and that means that the Government have in mind only one kind of inspector.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is pretty clear what this is all about. Last week, we discussed the early stages of the Bill, and during the debate it became evident that it was a Government Bill which had been pushed into the hands of the Back-Bench Tory who introduced it. I believe that earlier, at the Government's behest, he agreed to postpone proceedings on the Bill, and there is no doubt that, once again, here is a relaxation of important rules that have applied for years. The Government are intent on relaxing those rules, just as they have relaxed the rules on health and safety and the inspector appointed will be "one of us". He will obviously be a supporter of the Tory party, a member of the "Thatcher 10-year clan". As a result, the Bill will assist people who want to relax the rules and to remove authority from local authorities which are publicly accountable. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are intervening on my intervention.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech. If he is intervening, it is an extraordinarily long intervention.

Mr. Skinner: I am sure that you know, Mr. Walker, that, occasionally, there are long interventions. Sometimes there are very long speeches, but sometimes they are necessary, such as when a Bill was being rushed through in what was nearly a clandestine fashion by this obnoxious Government and one of their supporters. The Bill has had a chequered history.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention—if it is an intervention—is excessively long. Perhaps he should seek to catch my eye and address himself to the matter before the Committee, which is that clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend's intervention was extremely helpful. This is not the first time that I have had to rely upon him. I have found that time after time he


brings a level of expertise, understanding and wisdom to the most obscure corners of legislation. With my hon. Friend, I have explored the hills of south Derbyshire on a Friday morning. I did not know when I arrived today that the Bill was on. I wish that I had been warned, because, as my hon. Friend says, it is not untypical of the Government to bring in on a Friday apparently innocuous Bills which, when examined, are found to be fraught with problems and dangers to the ordinary people. That is why I am concerned with the insertion of the words "the inspector" instead of "an inspector", bringing it down precisely to only one kind of inspector, not any inspector. I can think of many people who should be appointed inspectors, such as members of the Labour group in my district council, including Councillor MacMaster, who is the leader of the group, and Councillor Reilly, who is a brilliant expert on housing and would have much to say on weights and measures matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was absolutely right to introduce the fatal phrase that has dominated life over the past decade—"one of us". We know that, as has happened throughout the life of this Government, the question will be asked, "Is he one of us?" We often find out that, when a clause is apparently innocuous, it contains one subsection that must be closely observed before the clause is passed. What does it mean to have people who are authorised or unauthorised? In Bill after Bill, two kinds of people have been referred to, so that there are "us" and "them". That is what has happened during the decade of what is amusingly called "Thatcherism".
The Under-Secretary is fortunate, because he is not only "the Minister" but "a Minister". He straddles the borders even of nationality in this country. I am not sure to what extent the Bill extends from England into Wales and Scotland. The Minister might like to intervene and let me know whether it will extend to Scotland, because, if it does, some of we Scottish Members would like to know to what extent.

Mr. Skinner: I should have explained earlier to my hon. Friend that the Government did not give a proper explanation when this matter was last debated, and only a fleeting reference was made to certain provisions. The hon. Member who introduced it did not say much about it. Thus, my hon. Friend may not get from the Government the information he is seeking. However, it seems that the Under-Secretary is beginning to rise, so perhaps the information may be forthcoming.

Mr. Buchan: I should like to hear whether the measure applies to Scotland and, indeed, the whole of Scotland. In some areas Scotland has regional councils and district councils, but in other areas it has only single councils known as island councils. I was brought up in the islands, in Orkney. Weights and measures were always on our mind up there. There are problems in an island community, which has to be served by ships, so that there are questions about the weights of cargoes, and so on. Living there is quite different from living in the rest of Scotland. Will local authorities be involved in this case?—[Interruption.] I want to explain my question fully. The Under-Secretary should not be impatient.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I am getting anxious.

Mr. Buchan: I know that the Minister is anxious to give information, and I welcome that. He has the whole morning to do so. It is a good measure of a weighty Minister that he is keen to give answers to questions. However, I must explain the question fully.
Like myself, the Minister has had an academic career—at least, I think he has. I can remember one dreadful occasion when I failed to read the rubric at the top of an examination paper. The normal advice had been to answer three or perhaps four questions. I saw a question on John Donne that I knew inside out and spent two and a half hours out of three answering it. The rest of the time I spent on, I think, Spenser. As I was about to walk out of the room, I read at the top of the examination paper the rubric "Candidates must attempt at least four questions". I sweated for some weeks, but there must have been a generous examiner, because I passed. Therefore, it is necessary to know the fullness of a question before an answer can be given.
In Scotland, we have a habit of sometimes using archaic terms. We sometimes use a kind of language of our own. In one area an ounce can mean an animal with four legs. In another area an ounce may be involved with weights and measures. Similarly if we say an ell—if we give an inch and take an ell—it may be meaningful in some parts of Scotland, or even Yorkshire or Derbyshire.

Mr. Skinner: If my hon. Friend wants answers to questions about inches and ells, he should remember that we have been dragged into this unmitigated disaster of the Common Market. The Common Market is against inches and ells. It is against all those things commonly known as British; it is trying to get rid of all the forms of measurement to which my hon. Friend is referring. After an extensive debate on this issue, we might find out why certain things have been left out. Is there a connection with the Common Market? Is tills another surrender to people in the Common Market—the bureaucrats working on the big fat salaries who have nothing better to do than search for ells, inches, feet, miles and so on and delete them from the British language?
We must stand firm today. This could be a most important day in British history as we fight for the inches and ells, albeit in connection with a Bill that we do not want. I believe that, on this bleak Friday morning, my hon. Friend has found something very important—another Common Market ruse to remove these important forms of measurement that have been used in Britain throughout the centuries.

Mr. Buchan: That illustrates the wisdom of not immediately putting my question to the Minister. My hon. Friend will realise that I would have gone on to the issue that he has outlined. He will recall that he and I fought bitterly against entry to the Common Market, not just in defence of the ounce, the quart, the pint, and so on, but for all sorts of political and economic reasons. We were right to do so, when we consider the tons—another weight and measure—of goods flowing into the country and contributing to a reverse balance of trade amounting to a £14 billion deficit. We were nearly hounded out of office in 1964 because of a £100 million deficit—[Interruption.] I know that the Minister is anxious to get in, but he must let me finish the point I am making.
That figure of £14 billion is in pounds, and not the obscure measurement of money used in the Common


Market—the ecu. It sounds like a curious animal. Are we going to stick to pounds, or will we have to absorb the Common Market terms? I used to have to fiddle with the green pound and the sterling pound. There are green pounds and ecus, and so on. We must measure that against the deficit into which this damnable Government have run us in the past decade. There is no mention of that in the Bill, yet every pound that we see in deficit can be measured in terms of trade and jobs lost to Britain. Jobs lost can also be measured in terms of human agony. I hope that the Minister is intent on finding out from the civil servants the answers to some of these questions. I hoped that he would be ready to give me an answer, but he is not, so I shall have to continue.
Above all, Mr. Walker—when you lean forward, Sir, I realise that you, like me, are concentrating on the subject at hand—does this Bill apply to Scotland? If it does, will different measurements and forms of administration be used in Scotland or in island councils? Shall we be looking for "an inspector" or "the inspector" and, if so, will it be somebody who has an understanding of consumer problems and the way that they are affected by this measure?
10 am
In Scotland we use the old terms, and we also have a separate administration. To what extent will that separate administration of the Scottish Office be affected? We have a Scottish shadow spokesman helping out today. I think that things are happening. I should like to know what they are, and I should like some advice on them. The Minister might like to give an answer on that.
To what extent will the Bill affect our continuing membership of the Common Market, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has asked? What will be the effect of subsection (3) on the events that will occur in 1992? On that date, there will be a disappearance of barriers, and a free market. What consequence will that have on British legislation? Is there any point in proceeding with this British legislation when we are within a couple of years of 1992?
Will we be forcing on the rest of Europe our ounces, pints and all the rest of our non-decimal measurements that still prevail in British lands? Will there have to be "an inspector" or "the inspector" for ports to determine the precise decimal quantification of metres as opposed to yards or tonnes measured in pounds, ounces, stones and hundredweights? Will there have to be an apparatus of "the" inspectors or "an" inspector at Dover, Folkestone or other ports? My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has not noticed that point. He has been busy, and I hope that he has got some useful advice.
The Common Market is not just a threat to our names and our acceptance of these measurements. We all know what a pint or a yard is, and we cannot conceive of a cricket ground measured in metres. However, 1992 is nearly upon us. Will there be a battery of civil servants to measure and weigh each crate, and translate tonnes into pounds?

Mr. Skinner: Many people have misconceptions about what is called the big bang of 1992. It will be about as big

a bang as that in the stock market in 1987. Then they were forecasting all sorts of wonderful and beautiful things for Britain and—

The Chairman: Order. I am having a little difficulty in seeing what this has to do with the debate on whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: Because when we have these inspectors, and they will be as specified in the Bill, they will have to go to the ports and measure this, that and the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) was quite properly making the point that, because of all the hype and propaganda about what will happen in 1992, they will have to inspect, stamp and authorise a lot more goods than would otherwise be the case. He thinks that there will be a massive export of goods from Britain, but the opposite will happen. We already have a massive balance of payments deficit of nearly £20,000 million on trade alone.

Mr. Roger King: How much?

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should listen carefully. We are talking about trade, not about the balance of payments deficit. That includes the invisibles, which have also been falling since 1987. The inspectors will not be inspecting the invisibles, although this Government could try anything on. They might have invisible inspectors to inspect the invisibles. However, they will definitely have these inspectors who will be Tory inspectors, going to the ports. [Interruption.] There is no doubt about that. As long as this Prime Minister is here, she will be checking them out. Tory Members who are laughing must not think for a moment that these will be what I would call Secretary of State for Wales-type inspectors. They will be inspectors drawn from the belly of the Establishment—"one of us" type inspectors. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who has been referred to as a bladder of lard—

Mr. King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am somewhat confused, because I am not sure who is speaking. Is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) making a speech or an intervention? I am listening with great interest to him, but all I hear, apart from incoherent ramblings, is nothing to do with clause 2.

The Chairman: I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's confusion. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), but is doing so at excessive length, which he should not. If he wishes to catch my eye later in the proceedings, he can make a speech. However, in the meantime we must recognise our convention that interventions should be brief.

Mr. Skinner: I shall wrap it up then, Mr. Chairman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South got the idea that many inspectors will be needed for the 1992 operation. I am saying that not many will be needed, because 1992 will be a damp squib. French and German goods will be coming here, so all the trade will be coming this way. We may have to inspect all the Common Market goods that will be flooding in, and we shall need a new sort of weights and measures Bill, but we should not assume that in all those ports, the Common Market will allow Britain to export goods.

Mr. Buchan: I see the problem. I had thought of it in only one way—how to translate yards to metres. I am glad that my hon. Friend intervened, because the Minister now has to answer another question, about how we shall demand of the French that they transfer metres into yards. This could lead to the break-up of the Common Market if we are not careful.

Mr. Forth: That would put the hon. Gentleman's old lady out of a job.

Mr. Buchan: Indeed it would. We are a strong family and are concerned with these problems. My wife has to deal with yet another dimension. The work that she does, weekend after weekend, as she batters at her typewriter while I batter at my word processor—I am defending the people of Britain, she is defending people in this monstrous regiment of the Common Market—will increase. We shall have to exchange notes translating pounds, ounces, pints and quarts back and forth.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has, as usual, gone to the heart of the problem. This point about the European aspect and the use of metres and other such measures may be a small one, but I want the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) to understand that, up to a year ago, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was sound on European matters. However, he has undergone a Damascene experience. He has seen the European light and he is swashed up in the 1992 push of the Department of Trade and Industry. I urge the hon. Member for Paisley, South to make his case with force and candour because otherwise it will weigh little with my hon. Friend, the pro-European Minister.

Mr. Buchan: I am grateful for that advice, which I shall take to heart. Subsection (4)(a) and (b) will also have to be examined in close detail, as it affects the Common Market. The effort to get to the truth about this Bill has been a cross-party one, and that is helpful. I have seen Damascene conversions on this side of the House as well as on the Government side. There are some of us, however, who remain true to our faith. As has been pointed out, it has been more difficult for my wife than me, as she is absorbed in the strange milieu of Brussels and Strasbourg. I believe that if she can keep the light shining, it should be easier for some of us to do so.
It is right that we keep a watchful eye on both Front Benches regarding this issue. Today, the Minister is in the firing line and he has been put into an impossible situation. I understand his grief and the problems that face him. It is enough trouble to represent the Treasury Bench on a Friday morning, but to have to do so and defend what he knows in his heart of hearts to be the indefensible is a further problem.
I am concerned for the health of Ministers who have to bear the burden of speaking that which they know is not necessarily the truth. Truth is even more difficult to measure than weights. At least one can put an ounce on the scale, but "What is truth?" as jesting Pilate said. Truth is more difficult to measure, even with a Bill as neatly drafted as this.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) will also be aware of the skill with which parliamentary draftsmen must try to get through the various labyrinthine shadows—excuse my mixed metaphors—forced upon us by 1992

and the Common Market. Perhaps that is one reason why some of the legislation seems so harmful to we simple souls who believe that two and two make four. Such legislation is often prepared in the knowledge that the cataclysm of 1992 is upon us. I feel for the Minister and I know that he would willingly withdraw the Bill and redraft it in good English terms.

Mr. Forth: It is not my Bill.

Mr. Buchan: This poor unfortunate Minister. What is the Whips' Office doing sending a Minister here with a Bill that is not even his? Is this a private Member's Bill? Oh my goodness gracious me.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Buchan: An embarrassment of riches—I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has posed a serious question about Friday mornings. During the past few weeks the Government have taken Bills off the shelf and passed them to Tory Back Benchers. In essence they are Government Bills. We had one last week about which we had to talk for some considerable time. The Bills are passed to Tory Back Benchers so that they look as though they are private Members' Bills, but the net result is that Friday, reserved for private Members' Bills has been hijacked by the Government The Minister has been stuck with the Bill today. The Government may not be altogether happy with it and no doubt they will express some reservations about it to make it look clean and decent. The truth is, however, that the Bill has come from the Government, off the shelf, into salmonella Wiggin's hands and he is using it.

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend is right. This is a Government Bill which has been handed to a Back Bencher so that he can do the job for them. Surely this should be called a hybrid Bill—this uneasy alliance between the Government and private Members. I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) is standing at the Bar—we have another first-class speaker.
I know that hybrid Bills have been the source of some terror to the Government. I remember that a Government were almost brought down by a hybrid Bill and that a little skulduggery was practised in the Lobby to save the day. If it is the Government's new practice to get private Members to smuggle in Bills that they have not had the courage to bring in themselves, surely there should be separate legislation. "Erskine May" should open up a new chapter on Friday morning skulduggery.

Mr. Wiggin: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The question before the Committee is that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. To put it mildly, our debate is moving away from that question. Hon. Members should address their remarks more directly to the question.

Mr. Buchan: I am sorry, but I have had so many interventions from Tory Back Benchers and from the Minister, who corrected me. If they had not intervened, much of what I have said would have been unnecessary.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman has been extremely unfair and cavalier in respect of my hon. Friend the Minister, for whom we both have a great affection for he is a man of high standing in the House. The hon. Gentleman must understand that my hon. Friend is in much the same position as any British ambassador who is sent abroad to lie for this country. The hon. Gentleman should not be so unfair to the Minister who has his job to do—he must represent the Department of Trade and Industry. However, distasteful it may be to us, to him there is a wonderful fresh taste in his mouth—the new discovery of Europe. The hon. Gentleman should not criticise my hon. Friend too strongly.

Mr. Buchan: I shall do my best and I shall be as gentle as I can, but the Minister is here representing the full majesty of the Government—he is sitting on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my absolute word that it was my intention to legislate on this matter, which is highly technical? When the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill and remotely understands what it is all about—he certainly does not at the moment—he will discover how technical it is. Because of its technical nature, I asked the Minister whether the Government would assist me in drafting the Bill and I am extremely grateful for their help.
In view of the hon. Gentleman's known family interests in the European Community, he should realise that one of the objects of the Bill is to try to get a step ahead of the Community, not to follow behind. Because of the hon. Gentleman's unintelligent opposition to the Bill, Britain will be disadvantaged and that is wrong.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has revealed a new depth to the Bill, which is certainly labyrinthine. Apparently the Bill is a cunning device to subvert the Common Market and the Government have put an anti-Marketeer on the Treasury Bench to carry it through. This is a remarkable experience—all things unfold on a Friday morning. Who would have thought that the Bill could have concealed such duplicity—an anti-Marketeer Minister pretending to be a pro-Marketeer. It has been cunningly disguised as a private Member's Bill so that we think that it is not important. It is, however, fraught with importance as it is an attempt to beat 1992 by two years. This Bill should be called the Weights and Measures (Ditch the Common Market) (Amendment) Bill. That is what it is about.
I understand that the Minister is now ready to give me the answers that I sought. We have all morning to explore the rest of the clause and certainly clause 2(4) will require a great deal of discussion and explanation.
Will the clause apply to "an inspector" and not just "the inspector"? In that way we could appoint people who understand some of the problems and are not merely bureaucrats. How will Scotland be affected? Will island councils be treated differently from a regional or district council in Scotland, given that the Bill applies to Scotland? Will inspectors be appointed from laymen serving on the councils?
Above all, I wait to hear the Minister's response to the points raised about the Common Market. I had not realised that there was such depth to the Bill. Is this an

attempt to subvert 1992? Is this a protective mechanism? Will our inspectors be trained so that they can look at a tonne and say that it is equivalent to 0·9 of another weight? Will they be able to distinguish a yard from an ell or a metre?
The Minister better have some notes about clause 2(4) as a lot of questions will be asked about the need for inspection. I am sure that my hon. Friends will have something to say about whether it should be "an inspector" or "the inspector". I shall conclude now, as I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will substantiate my remarks.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan)—

Mr. Forth: Is this a speech or an intervention?

Mr. Skinner: I was invited to speak by the Chair.

The Chairman: Order. I did not offer the hon. Gentleman any such invitation. He was simply seeking to catch my eye and therefore I called him.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, but, after I was called, the Minister—he has been referred to as an anti-marketeer, but he is a pro-marketeer—intervened from a sedentary position. That is uncalled for in this place. I am surprised that the Chair did not rebuke him for intervening in that fashion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South made an interesting and important speech, and he has every right to know whether the Bill applies to Scotland. The Bill has not been properly explained, and we are not sure what it is all about.

Mr. Wiggin: Absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman does not have a clue.

Mr. Skinner: But why is that? On the first occasion that the Bill was tabled, it was taken off for the day. That was a very interesting day. Other business was conducted while the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) sat in his place for about one and a half hours but then disappeared. That happened about four Fridays ago.

Mr. Buchan: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Bill has been introduced for some other purpose today? I might have known that, but I am an innocent in these matters.

Mr. Skinner: There has been a lot of jiggery-pokery over the past few Fridays. When the Bill was originally due to be considered in Committee, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare sat in his place for about two hours while the House debated the Control of Pollution Bill. That was an important Bill in the sense that it was debated at length one Friday. It was devised by the Government but handed to a Back Bencher who knew less about that Bill than perhaps the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare knows about the Bill now before the House, and who had to apologise to the House.
On that occasion, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare walked out of the Chamber and left the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill high and dry. When we challenged him and asked what was to happen to the Bill, he took it off the day's business. Last week, he had another crack at it, and for a few moments—no more than that—tried to explain some of its provisions. This morning, the hon. Gentleman is trying to wheedle the Bill through in next to no time. I understand that a number of


amendments were passed without any proper explanation, and clause I was passed. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South was busy elsewhere—probably in Scotland, trying to find out whether the Bill applies there.
It is significant that the Minister has not yet tried to explain to my hon. Friend whether the Bill applies to Scotland. We know that it is a Common Market Bill, but we still do not know whether it applies in Scotland in particular.

Mr. Kevin Barron: It is hardly surprising that the Minister has not yet got to his feet. If the Bill is passed, it will relieve his Department of a lot of the work that is to be given to the quasi-private sector. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is a bit work-shy anyway and would sooner see the responsibilities involved placed elsewhere and not left within the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Skinner: There is no doubt about that. The whole reason for the Bill was summed up in my hon. Friend's remarks. During the course of the earlier short debate on the Bill, it became clear what the Government are about. The Government admit that they drew up the Bill. Even the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare admits that he received "help" from Government lawyers. It is a Government Bill handed to a Back Bencher, and the hon. Gentleman thinks that he will get his name into the history books for getting the Bill passed. It is a kind of semi-privatisation. If the Government had any guts, they would have introduced it as part of their legislative programme.

Mr. Wiggin: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that at the end of my speech last Friday, for which he was present, I told the House that because of the Bill's complexity, some right hon. and hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, may not understand it and that I would make myself available to answer any questions and to explain the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman was present to hear that invitation, and as he is clearly concerned about the Bill, why has he not done me the courtesy of approaching me for an explanation?

Mr. Skinner: I do not usually get involved in those usual channels—if I start that game, I am finished. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look in Hansard, he will find that on the last occasion that the Bill was debated, I mentioned a letter that I received from the Consumers Association. It wrote to other right hon. and hon. Members also, with the information that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare did not consult the Consumers Association when drawing up the Bill or devising appropriate amendments. The hon. Gentleman heard me read into Hansard that letter, in which the association said that it had been let down in consultation on the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should he careful with his loose talk about people who have followed the Bill closely. I was asked by the Consumers Association to speak on the Bill, and I do not normally pick up a letter and say to myself, "I'll write that into Hansard." The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that he had consulted various bodies throughout Britain.

Mr. Wiggin: No, only those that approached me.

Mr. Skinner: The association of which I speak is headed by some "Lady quango", or used to be, and is connected with the magazine "Which?".

Mr. Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of these matters, acknowledge that it is possible that the Government lawyers who helped my hon. Friend draft his Bill may themselves have consulted the Consumers Association without my hon. Friend knowing? The Bill deals with such a technical area that the Government would obviously wish to assist my hon. Friend. It is likely that the Consumers Association was consulted on this, as on other matters, by the Government.

Mr. Skinner: Can the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) be sure what lawyers are up to any day of the week?

Mr. Soames: No.

Mr. Skinner: Right, so we are on decent ground there. It is clear that most right hon and hon. Members agree on that—except those who are themselves lawyers, and there are plenty of them. We know that the lawyers are now very much at war. I notice that on the Tory Benches in particular, the solicitors no longer sit with the barristers as a result of the Lord Chancellor's proposals. They can be seen pulling faces at one another. The Prime Minister as well has stirred that up.

Mr. Wiggin: What does that have to do with clause 2?

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman said that clause 2 was drafted with the help of Government lawyers. What kind of lawyers? Were they lawyers who are on the side of the Lord Chancellor, or lawyers on the side of Lord Hailsham—who is making scathing comments about the Prime Minister and about the Grantham grocer-shop mentality? What kind of Government lawyers were they? Is there a split among Government lawyers? Can we trust what they are up to nowadays? Is one set of lawyers trying to put down another set of lawyers? What guarantee is there that lawyers who go into the Box are not on one side or the other? Once mistrust has been sown, we shall not know what the next move will be. Can we trust any Bill? Can we trust the way in which clause 2 has been drawn up?

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have not been in the Chamber very long, but I refer to a point over which my hon. Friend passed rather quickly a few moments ago, as to whether the Bill fully applies to Scotland, and what will be the legal interpretation in the event of some parts of Scotland using old weights and measures. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the Bill is a form of privatisation. Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill represents a return to the days before equal weight and measures applied thoughout the whole country, which were introduced so that poor people would know that a pound of potatoes meant a pound of potatoes anywhere in the country?

Mr. Barron: And a baker's dozen meant 13, as well.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Bill represent a return to a local form of privatisation and regulation? I think that my hon. Friend would agree that that would be to the disadvantage of poor people who buy things in small quantities and very much to the advantage of merchants and traders, who would be in a position to decide on the local weight or measure according to the amount of profit that they could make.
I realise that this is a difficult question, but I should like my hon. Friend to answer it, and also to say how he thinks that the lawyers would deal with the problem, divided as they are at present on so many other issues.

Mr. Skinner: If I were to answer that I should want a lawyer and legal aid, because it would take a long time. I am not sure that I could get legal aid, however, because this is a well-paid job: we all agree on that. Some of us believe that we are well paid, anyway, although some hon. Members may think that they are poorly paid. We do not need moonlighting jobs on the side to supplement our income.

Mr. Gary Waller: rose—

Mr. Skinner: I think that there is a lawyer in the House.

Mr. Waller: I should like the right of reply, Mr. Walker. I plead not guilty on that count.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in this instance the lawyers do not count as much as those who are responsible for enforcing the law—that is, the trading standards officers? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, is agreeable to the provisions in the Bill? The institute was consulted, and amendments that it suggested have been incorporated. It does not consider that its interests are at stake; indeed, it wants the Bill to go further, and looks to my hon. Friend the Minister to introduce legislation in accordance with the representations of the Eden committee. It would be extremely disappointed if the Bill did not make progress today.

Mr. Skinner: Who said that the Bill would not make progress? We have got to examine it thoroughly. It is no use leaving it to the lawyers when it leaves this place. It is no use thinking, "Well, it went through on the nod. The Members of Parliament had a nice cushy Friday. The debate only lasted for an hour, and the Members of Parliament went off to listen to the results of the Vale of Glamorgan by-election. They were not bothered about giving the Bill proper scrutiny." We want to know what is meant by some of the references in clause 2, and we are not going to leave it to the lawyers. Some of us know that they are in business only to make a lot of money out of it.
I will tell the House why I am keen on making sure that the Bill is scrutinised properly, even if it is passed. Let me remind hon. Members what happened the other week. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) may have been here: he usually comes in to—in quotes—filibuster on a Friday. When I saw him today I thought, "Hullo, here he is. Here is the backstop man. He is the bloke who comes in at about 2 pm and puts an end to the proceedings." He has done it several times on various issues: I do not know why.
What happened the other week was that a Bill had the wrong title. The Government lawyers had brought in a Bill to repeal the Clean Air Act when it should have been "amend". I remember that the hon. Member for Keighley

was present. He was going to introduce his Bill that day, but then he went: he bobbied off. He went for an early bath, and mind the showers on the way out.
When we discovered that well-paid Government lawyers had actually got the title of the Bill wrong, we had to amend it. We told the hon. Gentleman in charge of it to sort it out. That was a valuable exercise in scrutiny and examination.

The Chairman: Order. I hope that eventually the hon. Gentleman will get round to discussing whether clause 2 should stand part of this Bill.

Mr. Skinner: I was asked to explain why a Bill drawn up by and with the help of Government lawyers and handed to a Back Bencher should be other than perfect. In your capacity as Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Walker, you will know only too well the importance of being careful to read the small print, and this morning we are into the small print.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley had come in to filibuster—

Mr. Skinner: In quotes.

Mr. Soames: That is most unfair. My hon. Friend is known on the Conservative Benches as a legislative humane killer. From time to time, because he happens to be here to deal with important parliamentary matters, my hon. Friend considers it his duty to come into the Chamber and examine closely and in detail private Members' Bills requiring the kind of scrutiny that would not take place if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—and I pay tribute to him—were not present on most Fridays. If he were not here, the most pernicious legislation would slip through on the nod. My hon. Friend, along with the hon. Member for Bolsover, is called on from time to time to administer the coup de grace.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of a split among the lawyers, and speculated on what kind of lawyers might have drafted the clause. If the lawyers who drafted the clause had the interests of the consumer at heart, they would have been supporters of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor; if, however, they were supporters of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Hailsham, they would not have been interested in consumers' rights.
I think that the hon. Gentleman can take some comfort from the fact that those lawyers will have consulted the Consumers Association, and will be interested in consumers' rights. The hon. Gentleman should give more credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, who would not allow such an important piece of legislation to be introduced unless he was satisfied that it could withstand the closest scrutiny of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is actually saying that there are some devious lawyers. That is what he is saying, in a nutshell. He may have said it in a posh Tory fashion, but that is what he means. He means that there are devious, cool, calculating, desiccated, machine-like lawyers who are only in it for the money, and some of them are close to the Government. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman realises that he has put his foot in it—and it is a big foot.
The hon. Gentleman has said that there are some dodgy lawyers who support Lord Hailsham and others, whom he regards as clean, who support the Prime Minister. He admits that people in both camps are not only to be found among Members of Parliament—although a lot are: I think that at the last count there were about 70 of one kind or another. There are not many here this morning, though. Of course, the courts are still open, and they cannot be here and in the courts at the same time.
It is difficult for lawyers on Fridays. If they are making £30,000 or £40,000 a year as lawyers—

Mr. Soames: A week.

Mr. Skinner: I was trying to be fair. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman can prove that some of them are lining their pockets to that extent at the same time as drawing up clause 2 of the Bill. Perhaps he can prove that they are getting their snouts into that kind of trough—I will not call it pig swill; that kind of money cannot be called pig swill.
The hon. Gentleman is closer to the heart of Government than any other hon. Member present today, apart from the Minister. [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the number three pairing Whip, is pretty close. But the hon. Member for Crawley is PPS to the Secretary of State for the Environment. Did he get his information from the Secretary of State? What he has said this morning could well be an admission of what is stirring in the breast of the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps there is a Ridley plan mark 3 to cause real trouble among the lawyers. We may see that in the course of 1991.

The Chairman: Order. A clause that deals with the passing and stamping of equipment by authorised persons does not lend itself to a debate on the terms and conditions of employment for lawyers. I think that we should get back to clause 2.

Mr. Skinner: I am making the serious point that if Government lawyers—beset by all their worries and troubles and infighting—could bring to this House the other week a Bill whose title was wrong, we have to do something about it. They wanted to sweep away the Clean Air Act. We stopped them. We did a service to the country, as always.
If Government lawyers, who are involved in all this infighting between themselves, solicitors versus barristers, are sending Bills to the House on Friday mornings—including the Clean Air Act which they wanted to repeal instead of amend, which we had to do in the end—I have to ask myself, especially when the hon. Member for Crawley says that he agrees that there is trouble among them, "Can I be satisfied with clause 2 of the Bill? Who drew it up? Was it a solicitor? Was it a barrister? Was it a solicitor who hoped to be a barrister? Was it a solicitor who hopes to be a barrister under the new regime, or was it a solicitor who hopes to be a barrister but who wants to retain the status quo? What motivated the lawyer who drew up clause 2 and then handed the Bill to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare? What was in his or her mind?" We need to know. That is the question that needs to be answered this Friday morning.

Mr. Alistair Darling: I am almost sorry that I am here, as I am a lawyer. I think that I am the only lawyer in the House. I can only assume that all the others are doing precisely what my hon. Friend the

Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that they are doing. I apologise for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) is not here. I am sorry that she is not here and she will be sorry, too, when I speak to her next week. She has been unavoidably detained on very important business in the north.
Looking at clause 2 as a lawyer, is it not clear that it is no friend of the consumer? The explanatory memorandum and subsection (4) of clause 2 make it clear that faulty equipment could still be passed, not by inspectors but by authorised people, whoever they may be. The Bill—clause 2 in particular—is seeking to privatise the inspection of equipment and to allow shoddy equipment to be passed. For that reason, the Bill deserves to be opposed. In particular, clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend, who is a Scottish lawyer and who has still not been given an answer to his question as to whether the Bill applies to Scotland, has put his finger on another important flaw in clause 2: who will inspect and test faulty equipment? Does it mean that the Government—who have done 19 different fiddles of the unemployment figures, who are now fiddling the cost of living figures, who are threatening to fiddle the balance of payment figures and who are threatening to fiddle the inflation figures by leaving out mortgage interest relief—are going to do yet another fiddle? The Government live by fiddles. They are run by what have been described as bent lawyers. Does the Bill mean that we shall have equipment that can fiddle as well?

Mr. Buchan: I have been ruminating on my hon. Friend's barristers versus solicitors argument. The point about a barrister or a solicitor, or a solicitor wishing to be a barrister, is that both get the lolly. The solicitor briefs the barrister; he gets paid for doing the briefing. The barrister gets paid for explaining the brief. Both of them are at it. It is a double fiddle. Does my hon. Friend see the point?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, I know that that is the game. That is why this important debate is taking place. However, I do not believe that it will ever happen. I hope that I am helping some of the lawyers when I say that changing the relationship between solicitors and barristers is just a publicity stunt by the Prime Minister. I do not think that she has the nerve to carry it through. The judges, who were going to go on strike at the Royal Courts of Justice the other day, decided to call it off when the Prime Minister gave in. Some people thought that the judges had backed down, but they did not. The Prime Minister gave in. The jury is still out on that question.

Mr. Barron: On the question of the drafting of clause 2 by lawyers, it is a question not of personalities in the other place but whether one is a member of the Bar Council or the Law Society. If the White Paper ever leads to legislation, what it contains will depend on who drafts the clauses of the next employment Bill. That will show who is the victor in the argument.

Mr. Skinner: There is no doubt that infighting is taking place and that we shall have to scrutinise Bills more carefully. We do not know what the motives are. When they get up in the morning we cannot be sure whether they say, "I think I'll draft a Bill for the Government today that will make them look up when I've finished with it for


having caused all that trouble—for having set the Lord Chancellor going with this new idea of undermining my living standards. I'll have to move from Henley and sell up."
What goes through their heads when they sit down at their desks and somebody says, "Emergency! We need a Bill, quick, for Friday morning. We need it to be drafted quickly to pass to a Back Bencher. We need to give the impression that this is a private Member's Bill when in reality it is a Government Bill. Get it done quick." The solicitor says, "Huh, you want me to pull out all the stops. This Tory Government want me to get stuck in all day on it and draw up clause 2 of the Bill. I'll cause some trouble. They're not going to upset me. They won't stop me becoming a barrister and making all those big fat fees. They're not going to cause all that trouble. I'm going to draw up clause 2 in a fashion that makes it unworkable. I know what I'll do. I'll draw up a clause 2 in which I say that anybody can inspect faulty equipment. That will cause some trouble. Someone on the Labour Benches will spot that."

Mr. Barron: Or any barrow boy.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, or any barrow boy, but let us get that into perspective. Barrow boys are as good as solicitors. I would say that they are better than solicitors.

Mr. Darling: Is my hon. Friend saying that they are both a bit shifty?

Mr. Skinner: No. I am saying that they are both in the business of selling, so we ought not to go too far down that road. In the elections yesterday I think that we got more votes than barrow boys and solicitors in some areas of Britain. It was a pretty good day in Derbyshire. We won a seat, not far from me, from the Tories. It was supposed to be an independent seat, but we know the score. We won a glorious victory in Brackenfield; part of it is in my constituency. Some lawyers voted for us who might be of the kind who would draft clause 2. Who knows? They were so disenchanted with the Government who had introduced this new divisive element into the legal fraternity that, word has it, of the few lawyers in the Bolsover area, almost all of them voted for us. So we had a pretty spectacular victory in Brackenfield.

Mr. Waller: In view of the hon. Gentleman's obviously well-founded doubts about lawyers, about whom he has spoken for some time, was it not rash of him to adopt without question the advice that was given to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) who is a self-confessed Scottish lawyer? His hon. Friend's advice was that clause 2 reduces the rights of the consumer. That clause, however, is designed to remove from trading standards officers purely routine tasks that could be carried out by anybody in order to ensure that trading standards officers can protect the rights of consumers who are under attack from a whole range of rogues.

Mr. Skinner: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman believes that. I think that he is making a point on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. Let us be fair. Let us imagine that we are in a grocer's shop in Grantham with a weighing machine—

Mr. Barron: It has closed down.

Mr. Skinner: It is a cafe now; it is called the Premier Cafe. Let us go back two or three decades. When the Prime Minister used to serve behind the counter she used to use a weighing machine. Probably an inspector called every so often.

Mr. Wiggin: He still will.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, but he could be anybody. That is why the law has been relaxed. When the Prime Minister was weighing out the dolly mixtures, if it went overweight she used to cut the dolly mixtures in half rather than give too much. She used to cut the heads of the jelly babies. If somebody came in the shop for two ounces of jelly babies, if they were just a touch over the weight, off came their heads. When the Prime Minister sliced the bacon, one could see through it.
It is easy to use the equipment in a faulty fashion. It only takes one tinpot inspector who is interested in making a small fortune from fiddling to come along and say, "I have inspected the equipment under clause 2 of the Bill drawn up by those dodgy lawyers, who produced it when they were so frustrated with the threat to their livelihood posed by the Prime Minister."
The Bill was born out of frustration and a degree of devilment, and, as a result, faulty weighing machines will probably carry out measurements in the Common Market. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South referred to that earlier when he spoke about having to measure in ecus rather than using old-fashioned British measurements. There are foreign lawyers in the Common Market. What will they do with the Bill? They will say, "Have you heard about the Bill that they have passed over in Britain? We have just received a copy of it." They will say that it is cock-eyed—I do not know the French or German for that—but they will say, "This is a tidy old Bill".
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) has just come in. He is a Liberal lawyer. He has come here to lick his wounds. Some of his colleagues have been asked to go on television to explain why the Liberals, or whatever they are called, lost so many seats yesterday. They cannot get Paddy to go on television. He will not appear in order to explain. It is a good job that the hon. and learned Gentleman has come in here as we are discussing whether lawyers, frustrated with the threat that has been posed to their livelihood by the Lord Chancellor's new proposals, would draw up for the Government to pass to Back Benchers Bills that are a little bit dodgy. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer. What does he think? Could they be so worked up and frustrated that they will say, "We will cause the Government some trouble if they threaten our livelihood."?

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government's legislative record on these matters is so poor that they are well capable of creating legislation that gives more work to lawyers without lawyers offering any assistance in that regard.

Mr. Skinner: I reckon that that was a legal answer. I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman, would charge for that outside this place.

Mr. Campbell: Two hundred and fifty guineas.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. and learned Gentleman would charge 250 guineas for that advice. I have been giving advice on the Bill all morning, with a briefing from the Consumers Association in my hand because it is against the Bill. I shall read it out because people in Britain have a right to know why the Bill is defective as it has been drawn up by dodgy Government lawyers.
The Secretary of State for Health has just entered the Chamber. He is another lawyer. Perhaps we shall find out what he thinks. Will the lawyer on the Government Front Bench tell us whose side he is on? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the side of those who support the Lord Chancellor, or does he take the side of those who support Lord Hailsham? Does he have a view of his own? Dare he speak his mind? He should tell us today whether he is in the Prime Minister's pocket. What does he say to her in the Cabinet? Has he the guts to speak out? Does he agree with the Secretary of State for Wales about our economic problems? The lawyer who has just entered the Chamber should answer all those questions so that we can find out whether the Bill has been drawn up properly.
The Consumers Association, the publishers of Which? magazine, has a longstanding reputation in Britain for its reports. Those reports are based on intensive research, and when Radio 4's "Today" and "PM" programmes say that Which? has produced a report on something, people sit up and take notice. The Consumers Association has produced a report on the Bill and the first paragraph reads:
Although this Bill appears uncontroversial"—
that is, the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill, and clause 2 in particular—
it does in fact overturn basic measures of consumer protection which have been taken for granted for over 100 years. The Consumers Association urgently requests your support in opposing this Bill.
That is what I am doing today.

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that we have only just discovered that the Bill, through the smuggling out of another Bill, suddenly confronts us. We have to start finding our way though the labyrinths of the Bill, and only now, through the Government's non-response, do we realise the iniquity of the Bill. Now, we are confronted with a proper analysis and know that the Bill that was to be smuggled through under the pretence that it was a private Member's Bill was a Government Bill handed to a Back Bencher. Another private Member's Bill was whipped out of the way for it and the Government hope that they will smuggle it through. Is that not what has happened this morning? I came in here by chance to say that there is something fishy about the Bill. We asked some questions, and before an hour had passed we received a briefing from the Consumers Association defending the people of this

country saying that the Bill should be opposed. The Government have been caught in a labyrinthine net of their own contrivance and it is up to the House to throw it out with contempt. We have a job on our hands, but it shall be done.

Mr. Skinner: More people are listening to the debate now. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South came in early this morning.

Mr. Buchan: Alone.

Mr. Skinner: I quickly followed him. A Bill was being smuggled through the House and Members of Parliament should understand what is happening.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has just entered the Chamber. No doubt he has been busy on television and radio. The right hon. Gentleman who is sitting next to me, and who suffered defeat in yesterday's local elections should know that the Bill was drawn up by Government lawyers, some of whom were fed up to the back teeth with the way that the Government are treating them. They have produced a dodgy Bill and passed it to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, who used to be a Minister and now has little or nothing to do apart from manning the Agriculture Select Committee and being trampled on by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on occasions. I think that they said, "We feel sorry for Jerry" because he is supposed to be one of the knights of the shires, "Can we give Jerry a leg-up?" We have a Bill on the shelf. It is about weights and measures. It is about allowing the manufacturers of weights and measures equipment to sell faulty equipment more easily because the Bill will allow inspectors who might not even be inspectors." They could be frustrated lawyers running away from the Lord Chancellor. The Government say to the frustrated Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, "Jerry, you will only have to come in on the occasional Friday and smuggle through the Bill." Those were the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South. The Government are occupying a private Members' day with their own Bills. We found them out the other week. Instead of authentic private Members' Bills that are drawn in the top six in the ballot, the Government, together with some of the Whips, are passing their Bills on to Tory Back Benchers and telling them to smuggle them through because nobody—
It being Eleven o'clock, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER'S intention to interrupt proceedings pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings) having been made known, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair, without Question put.
Committee report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

General Practitioners (Contract)

11 am

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the family doctors' contract.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that, late last night after prolonged discussions, I reached agreement with Dr. Michael Wilson the chairman of the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association and his negotiating colleagues on all the major outstanding issues involved in the new contract proposed for family doctors. I now expect a contract on the lines agreed to be introduced for family doctors throughout Great Britain with effect from 1 April 1990. My Department is now preparing a new statement of fees and allowances and regulations for consultation on minor details with representatives of the profession and I will lay the regulations in their final form before the House in due course.
The new contract will introduce new performance bonus payments for those doctors who reach the Government's targets of 90 per cent. coverage for childhood immunisation and 80 per cent. coverage for screening for cervical cancer. I have also agreed to introduce new lower-rate bonus payments of one third of the full rate for those doctors who attain 70 per cent. for immunisation and 50 per cent. cover for cervical cancer screening.
The negotiators have agreed my proposal that the fee paid where a night visit is made by a doctor from the patient's own practice should be three times the fee paid when the visit is made by a deputy.
To meet representations put to me on behalf of doctors in small practices, I have agreed that the higher fee for night visits should also be paid when the visit is made by a doctor from a small rota of local general practitioners, so long as the rota does not include more than 10 practitioners.
I had originally proposed that the new contract should require GPs to be available to patients for 20 hours each week in surgery. To meet representations put to me by rural doctors in particular, I have now agreed that the terms of service will require GPs to be available for 26 hours on average over five days each week and that this will include availability in surgery, health promotion clinics and for home visits. In recognition of the work that some GPs do elsewhere on health-related activities in the public service, for example in community hospitals, this commitment can be reduced to four days in individual cases subject to agreement with the family practitioner committee.
The GMSC and I have always agreed that additional payments should be made to rural practitioners and that the present system of rural practice payments needed to be updated. We have not yet agreed on the fairest method, but we are confident that we will be able to do so. We agreed last night that work on revising the scheme would be taken out of the present negotiations and considered by the central advisory committee on rural practice payments.
We also reached mutually satisfactory agreements on minor surgery, seniority payments, the basic practice allowance, funds for practice teams and premises and new higher capitation payments for GPs serving deprived areas.
We also agreed to submit joint evidence to the doctors and dentists review body about pricing the new contract in such a way as to meet the Government's policy objective for the general medical services in that the joint evidence would refer to the profession's acceptance of the Government's intention that the proportion of the remuneration of GPs arising from capitation based payments will reach 60 per cent. from 1 April 1990.
There were large areas of the new contract on which we had always been in agreement with the profession. I am glad to say, therefore, that, for example, the proposed new payments for surveillance of young children and the new higher capitation payments for patients over the age of 75 with whom doctors retain close contact were never at any time the subject of controversy between us.
The negotiators undertook to commend last night's agreement to the profession for implementation with effect from 1 April 1990.
This agreement is a very significant step in the development of the family doctor service in our National Health Service. The new contract will be very different from the old one. It will ensure that the highest rewards go to the most hard-working doctors and that incentives and rewards are given to those who introduce new services and hit high standards of performance. I think that the negotiators and I are agreed that it provides the foundation for significant further improvements in the quality of primary health care for all our NHS patients.

Ms. Harriet Harman: We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has made what we hope will be the first of many U-turns—[Interruption.] Oh yes.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the negotiations have never been about how much is put from the public purse into general practice but rather about how that money from the public purse is to be distributed? Therefore, his comments about general practitioners feeling for their wallets were deeply offensive and unnecessary. Will he now apologise for the thuggish way he has conducted the negotiations?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that many believe that his aggressive style during the negotiations was a deliberate ploy to distract from doctors' opposition to the White Paper and to muddle in the public mind the issues of the White Paper and those of the contract? Will he guarantee that the cash limits for general practice ancillary staff and premises, which were set up under the Health and Medicines Act 1988, will not be so low as to prevent doctors from achieving the screening and prevention targets that are to be put into the new contract?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise the widespread concern about giving disproportionate financial incentives to doctors to increase their list size when patients get better care if doctors have more time for each patient? Will he guarantee that he will keep a close eye on how the capitation element works in practice and take action if it creeps above 60 per cent.? Will he recognise that the row that he has been having with the doctors will be as nothing compared to the wholesale opposition from the profession and the public to his plans to destroy the NHS?

Mr. Clarke: Like my hon. Friends, I found the hon. Lady's opening remarks somewhat surprising. If she now supports the contract as agreed last night, the most amazing U-turn has been performed by the Opposition.


The contract as agreed reflects the performance targets and higher capitation levels on which the Government have always insisted. We have agreed with the profession a reasonable package which meets its requirements and those of the many doctors who have made representations to us on the details of how we achieve the Government's aims in the contract. The profession is now satisfied that we are pursuing the aims we were always pursuing in a practicable and sensible way.
I shall quote myself in full since the hon. Lady referred to my remarks about doctors feeling for their wallets. I said that I wished that the more suspicious doctors would stop feeling for their wallets whenever I mentioned the word "reform". I said that because the first reactions to my proposals were that many doctors, quite unreasonably, believed that somehow we were aiming to cut their incomes as soon as we started talking about a contract. We have now satisfied all doctors that there was never a threat to the overall level of general practitioners' incomes and that we were merely seeking to reward those who work hardest and hit the highest standards under the contract. Now that we have satisfied the negotiators of the GMSC on that point, I trust that the rest of the medical profession will be readily reassured.
I agree entirely that it is right to stop muddling up the contract for the remuneration of general practitioners with the White Paper reforms. The GMSC agrees with us about that. The issues have been muddled in recent campaigning. Many people have interpreted general practitioners' concern over the details of their contracts as fundamental opposition to our aims. The BMA negotiators last night agreed that they share our aims as set out in the foreword to the NHS review. They accept that we should aim to achieve a better service for patients. As we discussed matters fruitfully last night, I trust that we shall be able to do so on the White Paper and pursue our common aims in agreed ways as we develop our proposals for new methods of running the Health Service. I gave assurances yesterday about cash limits for ancillary services and said that we would honour commitments that we gave in passing the Health and Medicines Act 1988.
I do not accept that our measures are a drive towards bigger lists. We are agreed about increasing capitation, and it helps to improve the quality of service if those who work hard are rewarded and doctors are encouraged to attract and retain their patients. Above all, list sizes will be determined by whether patients are attracted and retained by services, and, of course, they will not wish to go to a doctor who is too busy to see them.
The agreement clears the way for more constructive discussion on the National Health Service White Paper "Working for Patients". I welcome the improvement in atmosphere that I am sure will result from our agreement. The bulk of the medical profession wants to join us in discussing the details of how we implement the Government's agreed aims to improve the Health Service for British patients.

Dame Jill Knight: The fact that this long-running business of settling the new contract has been concluded satisfactorily will give much satisfaction and pleasure to Conservative Members and people outside the House. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on sticking firmly to the underlying aim and thrust behind the contract—to improve pay for those doctors who work hardest. My right hon. and

learned Friend has never wavered, and there is no question of any U-turn. We admire him for always accommodating the BMA when it has asked for meetings over the past months. Some women doctors appeared to think that the way in which the contract was developing would disadvantage their opportunities within the profession. Will he reassure me that that is not so?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend knows as well as I that this has been a long-running subject. I share her relief that the long negotiations have at last come to an end with the agreed settlement. I thank her for her remarks, which are well worth bearing in mind as we proceed with the White Paper proposals for the reform of the Health Service. We must stick determinedly to our aim of improving the service, but we will be prepared to discuss with representatives of the profession, in as much detail as they want, how the aims can be achieved, and I think that last night was a good omen.
I have received many representations about women doctors. Although some of the fears that were expressed were misplaced, we endeavoured to ease the problems in our discussions last night. When my hon. Friend studies the details of the agreement, she will note that the change of basing payments from personal lists back to practice lists, and some of the changes that we made to the basic practice allowance, were designed to meet, among other things, the fear that we might accidentally deter women doctors from being admitted into partnerships.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the fact that agreement has been reached, not least because it shows that the Secretary of State now accepts that doctors, especially rural doctors, had real and substantial fears. I suspect that, on mature reflection, he may consider that the observation about doctors reaching for their wallets should not have been made. Will he clarify the protection that will be given to inner-city doctors, given the transient nature of their lists, which makes it more difficult not only to increase lists but to meet targets? In his statement, he referred to "Great Britain". Does last night's agreement supersede the draft contract issued to Scottish general practitioners by the Scottish Office Minister with responsibilities for health?

Mr. Clarke: I agree that it is important to give increased capitation payments to rural doctors and those who work in deprived areas, and both those groups were discussed yesterday. Both sides are agreed on the aim for rural doctors, but cannot agree on the method. Each side believes that the proposal that it is putting forward is fairer to rural doctors than the competing method. I have agreed that the matter should be referred to the specialist committee to decide how the current arrangements should be revised—we both agree that they should be revised—and in the meantime the current system will continue, which will reassure doctors north and south of the border.
We are introducing new higher capitation payments for those who work in inner-city areas. We are agreed on the basic principle of how to make the higher payments using an index known as the Jarman index. We have agreed to hold further discussions on precisely which areas will be covered. The choice is whether we have a high addition concentrated on few areas or whether it should be spread more widely over deprived districts.
This is a Great Britain agreement, and Scottish and Welsh negotiators were present yesterday. The agreement will apply to England, Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Roger Sims: I join in extending congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend on the diligence and patience with which he conducted the negotiations and the success that has crowned them. There has been much confusion between the contract and the White Paper, for which the profession must accept some responsibility. What will be the mechanics of explaining to doctors what has been agreed so that there will be no future misunderstandings? Does he agree that if reasonable men can reach agreement on the contract, it should be perfectly possible to reach understanding in discussions on the working papers that accompanied the White Paper, which worked towards ends that surely all of us share—the best possible National Health Service, which is in the interests of professionals, politicians and patients?

Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Rather perversely, I enjoy prolonged negotiations, which obviously goes back to my murky past as a lawyer. These were quite the most difficult and longest negotiations in which I have taken part since those that I had with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the greatly increased money for the Health Service this year. As we agreed that we shall spend it ever more wisely, the two are closely related.
My hon. Friend's point about explaining the mechanics to doctors is extremely important. I shall consider as rapidly as possible how I can most quickly communicate with all general practitioners so that they are aware of what has been agreed on their behalf. That is a great weakness in the Health Service, which gives rise to needless controversy. Half the people who work in it have no direct access to clear information about what is being proposed and done. The result is that they rely for a lot of their information on strange articles in specialist journals and leafleteering, which gives rise to unnecessary concern.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the agreement admirably demonstrates how the profession and the Government, who are both firmly committed to improving the National Health Service, can agree on details as long as we are prepared to thrash them out.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State made it clear that the issue of rural practice payments has been referred to the central advisory committee. Will he clarify when he expects such negotiations to be completed, because it is of particular interest to areas such as mine and throughout the Highlands and Islands of Scotland? It would be helpful if he gave an indication of the time scale that is envisaged.
The Secretary of State will be aware that many women doctors work part time. If the basic practice allowance is not to be made available to those with lists of fewer than 400 patients, has he estimated how many women GPs might be excluded from receipt of that payment?

Mr. Clarke: I cannot say how long it will take for negotiations to be completed, but we shall ask the committee to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. There is no difference of principle between us, and it probably requires the assistance of the specialist

committee to work out the methodology and how we should revise and bring up to date the present arrangements.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Egbaston (Dame Jill Knight), we have made significant changes to meet the fears expressed by women doctors. I do not think that the new contract will deter the taking on of women partners. Indeed, it recognises to a greater extent than before concepts such as job sharing and being a full principal with a part-time commitment.
The ever-growing interest in matters such as female screening for cancer will make women practitioners more attractive to partnerships because we are giving incentives for high performance in that part of medicine. Partly in response to the worries of female doctors, we have moved to the basic practice levels first set out in the proposed Scottish contract. We have put the rural matter on one side because of the fears of rural doctors north and south of the border and in order to seek a sensible agreement.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I, too, congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a settlement that everyone will welcome with relief and I congratulate him also on his healing words. Is he aware that two conclusions can be drawn? First, my right hon. and learned Friend is the antithesis of the fool and the knave that he has been portrayed as by the medical profession. Secondly, the unscrupulous use of the fears of the old and the sick which has been undertaken by general practitioners, certainly in my constituency, turns out to be little more than a bargaining ploy in these contractual negotiations. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore be even more determined to press on with his National Health Service improvements, despite what opposition may be set up by the now discredited general practitioners?

Mr. Clarke: I was not going to return to some of the topics on which my hon. and learned Friend has touched, but I note his views.
Certainly, on occasions, hard words have been exchanged. It is my experience—I am now in my second stint at the Department of Health—that medical politics is no place for the squeamish. They are never conducted on the same restrained level as matters of war and peace and other issues in British politics. I am glad to say that it has been my experience that agreement can be reached in the end and that, after a dispute is over, people appear to forget it entirely and no one can quite remember what the fuss was all about. That is likely to happen on this occasion.
My hon. and learned Friend is not the only person to feel that some of the points aimed at patients, as opposed to those aimed at me, were perhaps unwise. No doubt, he will make inquiries about what is proposed to be done about the 11 million leaflets that were published as part of the recent campaign.

Mr. Ron Leighton: The Secretary of State will know of the critical reception given by doctors in the London borough of Newham to his proposals. Although this is a separate matter, will he give a guarantee that general practice will not become a cash-limited service and that there will be no compulsion for doctors to become budget holders?

Mr. Clarke: I can give the hon. Gentleman the first assurance that he seeks. There are no proposals in our


White Paper to make the family doctor service cash limited, as he puts it. We have made it clear that practice budgets are open to GPs who want them. Those who expressed an interest in them will discuss the details and negotiate the size of the budget before contemplating whether to go on.
Drug budgets remain an important issue which we must settle. They will be indicative drug budgets, which means that there will be an indication of what the doctor should spend and, if he overspends, he will have to justify that to another doctor and explain his clinical practice. The important point about drug budgets from the point of view of the people of Newham and elsewhere is that there is nothing in our proposals that will ever lead to any difficulties for patients. There is certainly no question of any patient ever being refused the medicine that he or she needs because of anything that the Government have proposed or anything else in the offing for the Health Service.

Mr. John Watts: Following this welcome outbreak of sanity in the BMA, and now that the doctors' wage claim has been settled on terms which are basically the same as those originally proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend, which they said would prove so disastrous, may we expect to hear less from the BMA in the way of hysterical and untruthful assertions about the effects of the contract and the NHS reforms, which have worried so many of our patients and some of our doctors in such an unnecessary and wicked way?

Mr. Clarke: I must be fair to Michael Wilson and his colleagues who, along with my team and me, worked hard to reach a sensible package and an agreement. At the end, we parted on extremely good terms, both sides believing that we had improved the relationship between us. I share my hon. Friend's hope that that will continue and that we shall continue to discuss in the same spirit other matters arising out of the NHS White Paper that have been made more contentious than they need be. I am sure that the average member of the public cannot understand how such a highly qualified profession as the doctors can get into a dispute with the Government when we all agree that we are entirely agreed on the policy's objectives.

Mr. Kevin Barron: In view of what has been said by Conservative Members, will the Secretary of State accept this point? In my contacts with general practitioners in my constituency, both personally and through letters, no one has brought up the issue of the contract. It is not in dispute and has not been in the BMA's leaflets. The only time that I had a conversation about the contract was last Monday, the bank holiday, when my family doctor called at my home because one of my children was sick, and that conversation was about reaching set targets for cervical cancer screening. In my district health authority area women can go to a general practitioner, a family planning clinic or an out-patient service provided by the local health service. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman discussed in detail the setting of these targets and collection of statistics showing whether those targets are being met? That is important, in view of the complicated arrangements that exist, certainly within my district health authority.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman contradicts himself. Targets for screening for cervical cancer were an issue in

the contract. The Government always stated our aim that four out of five at-risk women should be screened against cervical cancer because it is an unnecessary and avoidable form of death for many women. We were able yesterday finally to agree that the Government's aim of 80 per cent. cover for cervical cancer screening was a sensible target to set. The change that I made was to introduce a new lower target of one third of the value of the full one for doctors who were not able to get immediately to the 80 per cent. target, but were able to get to 50 per cent. or more. I am sure that what we agreed last night will raise the level of screening and protect more women than would otherwise have been protected from the risk of death from cervical cancer.

Mr. Ian Gow: Without apportioning blame, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there has been an imperfect understanding by doctors of our proposals for their contract and of our proposals in the White Paper? Will my right hon. and learned Friend now do two things? First, will he communicate directly with GPs about the terms of the agreement that he reached yesterday and which we all welcome so warmly? Secondly, will he ensure that, in the continuing discussions about the implementation of the White Paper and the genuine exchange of views that is taking place, where necessary the Government will communicate directly with those doctors whose co-operation and assistance in his reforms are essential?

Mr. Clarke: I welcome my hon. Friend's advice and share the views that lie behind it. I caused to be sent to every GP, for the first time ever, copies of our contract proposals as they then stood. We have not moved away from those aims in what we have agreed today. When the leafleting campaign started, I sent every GP an explanation of my reply to the allegations in the leaflet. Unfortunately, I do not think that my communications are the sole source of information for doctors. I attribute no malice to anyone, but I think that often doctors do not read what they regard as mail coming from the Department. Many comments about what we were doing soon came flowing in from newspapers, other commentators and, dare I say, Opposition spokesmen which rapidly gave the impression that, for example, we would force doctors to have enormous practice list sizes. That was a red herring from beginning to end.
I take my hon. Friend's point that we must ensure that these contract details are firmly brought to the attention of GPs. They have been agreed by their negotiators, whom they trust, and I am sure that they will accept their commendation. We have to do a great deal to rebuild the trust of family doctors and to persuade them that we are not threatening their incomes, practices or well-being; we share with them the aim of improving the service.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Has the Secretary of State been so busy declaring war on GPs that he has concluded a disappointing contract for patients? That is particularly true for women, in view of the cervical smear figures that he has provided. The targets of 80 per cent. and, especially, 50 per cent. are too low. If the target for immunisation is 90 per cent., why cannot the target for cervical cancer testing be 90 per cent.? Is not the 50 per cent. figure an abysmal sell-out? That will be the target to which GPs work. Is this happening because to Secretary of State does not give women's health a sufficiently high priority or


because he will not give enough money to health authorities to ensure that a computer call and recall system operates properly?
As GPs will have their budgets limited, there is no incentive for them to deal with patients who contract HIV or have AIDS and who will be an expensive cost in budgets in future years. Should not the treatment of patients with HIV now be a subject for their contracts?

Mr. Clarke: I shall consider seriously having the hon. Gentleman with me on future occasions when I am discussing these matters, as he thinks that I have not gone far enough in the targets I have set. A target of 100 per cent., for example, for screening for cervical cancer might be ideal in an ideal world, but the test is voluntary. We all know that some patients will not respond and that others will refuse to have the test—for understandable reasons. We ask the doctors to explain and promote the benefits of the test to their patients. The general medical services committee agreed yesterday that the 80 per cent. target, which the Government thought was reasonable, was correct. The committee also persuaded me that it would be fair to introduce a lower target for practices that find it impossible to achieve 80 per cent. the first time, so GPs will receive one third of the bonus payment if they reach 50 per cent. However, our aim is the same—to raise the level of screening.
We need to consider new services for AIDS patients in using our new powers to draw the cash limits for payments for improvements to premises and practices, especially if there is a need to develop new clinics because there is a particular problem in an area. I agree that AIDS is a growing problem for particular practices in some areas. I am sure that the GMSC and I will continue to address the way in which we help such GPs to deal with this serious problem.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I join hon. Members and people outside in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on bringing common sense back into the negotiations. Does that not show that the Government are listening to valid points put by doctors and others? I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will confirm that that foreshadows constructive discussions on the Government's White Paper. Does he agree that whenever the Opposition enter the debate, they only add to the confusion and distress felt by many patients?

Mr. Clarke: I agree that we have been listening carefully to the representations of many hon. Members, who have, in turn, met GPs in their constituencies. Our proposals on rural practices, for example, and some of the changes we have made to the targets strongly reflect representations made to me by my hon. Friends and others in the past few weeks. We will continue to adopt the same approach. We have said throughout that we want constructive discussion on the working papers that we have put out because we intend to work in partnership with the profession in the implementation of the White Paper proposals. It is not for me to comment on the interventions by the Opposition, for which I am not responsible. However, I suspect that they feel a deep sense of disappointment that we have made a significant advance and that the way is now clear for the continued smooth implementation of the White Paper.

Mr. Alistair Darling: May I press the Secretary of State for a statement on resources? It is all very well to set standards, but unless there are additional resources to carry out testing, such as cervical smears, little will be achieved. The Secretary of State referred to AIDS. As he may know, Edinburgh has a high incidence of AIDS infection. It is not good enough to say that discussions about increased resources for the treatment and detection of patients with AIDS are a matter for the future. We need resources now and we should recognise that there is a growing problem in Edinburgh and it is spreading to the rest of the United Kingdom. What will the Secretary of State do about it? Do we have to wait until the problem arises in London before he realises that AIDS is a real problem?

Mr. Clarke: I said a moment ago that the last prolonged negotiations in which I was engaged were with my colleagues at the Treasury on resources for the National Health Service. The priority that the Government gave to putting extra resources into the Health Service was demonstrated clearly by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last autumn, when almost £2 billion extra was put into the Health Service. My Department is now the second highest spending Department. We spend more than the Ministry of Defence does—which is more than the Labour party could ever say—and if we carry on as we did last autumn, we shall rapidly catch up the Department of Social Security. This agreement is no substitute for resources. However, we are putting in resources on a scale that no previous Government have ever achieved and we are matching that with new proposals to ensure that the resources provide ever higher quality care.
The Government have put vast resources into research into AIDS and into developing new services north and south of the border. It is true that the problem is at its most acute in Edinburgh and, after Edinburgh, in London. It will be news to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who said that the problem would come to London soon, that it is there now. The Government have one of the best records of any Government in the developed world in responding to the threat of AIDS, both in resources for treatment and in public health education.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I also congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his determination to ensure that the taxpayer gets good value for money and that doctors who conscientiously carry out their duties are rewarded properly. In that regard, he is encouraging doctors to refer as few cases as possible to hospitals, and that must be good both for the practitioners and their patients. Will he shortly introduce a similar contract for consultants, some of whom are giving good service but others of whom are not? That is one of the major reasons for the long waiting lists in some areas.

Mr. Clarke: I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend in the way in which he described our proposals on referrals. Under the new contract, we shall have more information than ever before about the pattern of referrals and we shall find out more about how doctors refer their patients. We want the right use of the hospital service and the right level of referrals. At extremes, some doctors may refer far too many people by referring everybody to the hospital as a way of avoiding decisions themselves. At the other extreme, there may be doctors who do not refer


anybody, even when they should seek specialist advice. All the best GPs would agree that what is required is a good level of clinical practice so that GPs know when they should refer.
Consultants will be affected by the White Paper changes. Districts will have more control over what consultants do by being able to agree with them a job description which can be revised each year. That will help us to ensure that consultants have their efforts directed to the prime needs of patients in the area, which could include tackling waiting lists. Many of our proposals are aimed at ensuring that the whole service is brought up to the standards of the best. That means that we do not have to tolerate indefinitely the fact that waiting lists for similar operations can be enormous in one town, but much lower in another. Part of the reason lies in the system. It needs to be reformed, and in our proposals we are tackling the problem that my hon. Friend has described.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The Secretary of State said that he was looking forward to the continuance of constructive discussions. Does he consider that constructive discussions have been helped by the violent and intemperate language of some of his Back Benchers, who have referred today to the greed of doctors and to evil and wicked behaviour? Will the discussions be helped by his Back Benchers' concentration on the taxpayer rather than the patient? Will the Secretary of State recall that taxpayers are also patients?
Is not the White Paper still under massive questioning by the medical profession? We are pleased that an agreement has been secured which will allow more sensible discussion, but it does not go to the heart of the problem. The White Paper is still pushing in the direction of the private and away from the social. It is still not concentrating on the need for a fully social profession serving the community. The White Paper is still dominated by thoughts of cash. It is time that we thought of health instead.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friends and I have never attacked the medical profession, but it is true that we have attacked—

Mr. Buchan: They have been attacking the profession all morning.

Mr. Clarke: We have attacked vigorously some of the leaflets that have caused needless alarm to patients. The fact that my hon. Friends responded as they did made it clear to people using such leaflets in the campaign that they would not deter the Government from pursuing their aims. It also had the significant effect of persuading everybody that we should have sensible negotiations and that any amount of trying to frighten patients for the purpose of deterring the Government from their policies would not work. I assume that the leaflets are now a matter of the past.
It is a parody to say that the White Paper is concerned primarily with cash. Our main involvement with cash and the Health Service is that we continue to put in huge amounts, above inflation, and we have expanded the resources available to the Health Service at a rate that previous Governments have never been able to attain. The purpose of the White Paper is to improve the service for

patients. The profession agrees with us about that and we look forward to working with it constructively to achieve that aim.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. and learned Friend's proposals will be especially welcomed by GPs in rural practices in Wales. Can he tell me what he thinks the average remuneration of such GPs will be under the new contract? Is he looking at the problem of over-counting, because it is reported that in some inner-city areas as many as 20 per cent. of patients have moved away? The new agreement should contain a proper basis for paying doctors.

Mr. Clarke: It is difficult for me to give some sort of average figure for rural doctors in Wales. We would need to take a little more account of the circumstances of individual practices. I remind my hon. Friend of the examples that we gave at the back of the document that I sent to all GPs. They showed how the earning capacity of a doctor could be affected, given various list sizes, depending on the services that they provide. We shall have to update that to give every practitioner a clear idea of where he or she stands in relation to the new proposals.
My hon. Friend asked about over-counting. That has been a problem in the past, and I am sure that at one time if the lists of all GPs were added together the total would have been greater than the population, because many deceased people remain on a doctor's list for a long time. At long last we are making rapid advances in the introduction of information technology, and GPs records are very much better than they were. We can eliminate the problem of patients appearing on more than one list and should certainly have more reliable figures to work on by the time the new contract comes in next year.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will not the Secretary of State's statement be for ever known as the Vale of Glamorgan settlement? Is it not right to say that, notwithstanding all the letters that hon. Members have had from constituents and from doctors complaining about the White Paper in general, doctors in the Vale of Glamorgan acted during the by-election in a way that frightened the living daylights out of the Government and the Prime Minister in particular? That is why she has sent this lackey to the Dispatch Box after meeting the doctors to arrange the settlement. Will the Minister now go the whole way and carry out the wishes of millions of constituents and completely withdraw the White Paper?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman understands, arid, of course, it was a considerable frustration to me, that I could not proceed with the discussions before last night. I suspect that that was also a considerable disappointment to some people who campaigned on our behalf in the Vale of Glamorgan and elsewhere. I do not think that the action of the doctors was for party political reasons, because I assure the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of doctors vote Conservative. By an unhappy coincidence they had summoned a conference of their local medical committees for last week and felt unable to proceed with any meaningful negotiations until the conference was over. We settled last night about an hour after the polls closed, which was a considerable misfortune.
I hope that some of the doctors who have been distributing stuff in Glamorgan reflect on what they have been putting out. I hope that some of the people who voted


in mid-Glamorgan will look back on some of the leaflets to see what they said about excessive list sizes and so on in the light of last night's agreement.

Mr. Quentin Davies: May I offer my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend on his outstanding ability and on the success with which he has conducted and concluded these negotiations in very difficult circumstances? Does he agree that the reduction in the fixed element of the increase in the weighting of the performance-related classification element of GPs' remuneration is an important principle and a welcome part of the principle of economic rationality in the family practitioner service? Will he be encouraged to go further in applying that principle in reforming the National Health Service as a whole?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly share his belief in the value of performace-related payments because they encourage the very best standards of service in the NHS and elsewhere. I am keen on the whole idea of performance-related payment systems in many walks of life. We have them for general managers in the Health Service, and I agree that that principle and others mean good value for money for the patient and are the kind of principles that we should apply as we implement our NHS reforms.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to say more about what is behind his remarks on higher capitation for deprived areas? I have one or two such areas in my constituency. They concern me very much and certainly need help. Last night, GPs in my constituency said to me that they would like a greater right to refuse patients more quickly than at the moment. Is that implied in the agreement? In an urban area such as my constituency GPs have said that the optimum number of patients per GP is 1,700. Will the agreement change anything?

Mr. Clarke: I can tell my hon. Friend that 1,700 is below the average list size. I do not know the details of particular practices, but I accept that in some places lists cannot be as big as they are elsewhere. That applies especially in scattered rural areas or in areas of social deprivation where the demands are likely to be heavier per patient. That is the reason for this system and we are still discussing the details with the profession. The Jarman index is accepted by everybody as the best measurement of social deprivation for the purpose of assessing capitation fees. We still need to settle precisely which districts it will apply to. We were near to agreement last night, but decided to have further discussions at official level to finalise the details.
I am not quite sure about my hon. Friend's point about the ease of refusing patients. It has always been the case that, except in exceptional circumstances, a GP cannot be forced to take a patient. It is obviously much better for the GP to be a willing recipient of the patient but in unfortunate cases where a person can get nobody to take him the family practitioner committee has to retain the right to oblige a practice somewhere to offer medical services.

Mr. David Shaw: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the agreement reached last night

has demonstrated that a substantial body of medical opinion has accepted the principle that some change and some improvements are needed in the Health Service? Consequently, does he agree that the Government are right and the Opposition are wrong?

Mr. Clarke: Clearly, I agree with my hon. Friend. It shows that there never was any deep-seated rift or division of aims between ourselves and the medical profession. Many doctors agree with our aims and with many of our proposals in the contract and in the White Paper. The belief that the whole profession is up in arms against us is a complete myth. It must be a sad disappointment to the Opposition to see that we can make progress on the contract because they know that we can make similar progress on the White Paper. I have every intention of doing that.

Mr. Gary Waller: As my right hon. and learned Friend has rightly said, the welcome agreement now leaves the road open for a sensible and rational debate about the merits of the White Paper. Does he agree that that debate can now be even more rational because there is no excuse whatever for leaving elerly and sick patients with the idea that their general practitioners will not have the time, resources or the prescriptive budget to treat them and that they might be turned away?

Mr. Clarke: I agree that it is extremely important for us to continue to make clear that there never was, there is not now, and there never will be any circumstances in which elderly people will be turned away from their doctors or refused treatment as a result of any proposals by this Government. That is a total misunderstanding of what we propose and has aroused needless fears. We should all join in making sure that elderly people are reassured. The ideas being put about are total nonsense and we should now get back to a sensible debate about the proposals.

Ms. Diane Abbott: I have a letter here from a Mrs. A. M. Downes. Does the Secretary of State accept that thousands of elderly people are concerned about the cash-limiting proposal? Can he explain it further to my constituents? If the Government aim in some sense to put a ceiling on what GPs can spend, how can that be done without GPs running out of money at some point?
Regarding the capitation statement that is being negotiated for the deprived areas, is the M insister aware of how complex this question is? Areas such as mine in Hackney will have special problems. Other areas have special needs because of the high percentage of elderly people who need much more time spent on them and who cannot just be pushed in and out to achieve cost effectiveness. Will the Minister agree that it will take more than this statement and the agreement on the contract to quiet the fears of the thousands of people with whom I am in touch and who are concerned? Conservative Members should take seriously the letters from constituents.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We were taking matters seriously. We were here when the statement was made, and the hon. Lady was not.

Ms. Abbott: Conservative Members must have received hundreds of letters from constituents, as I have. Those constituents would be alarmed indeed if they could see Conservative Members giggling and chattering through


this portion of the debate. Will the Minister answer two particular points—about the cash limiting and about the complexity of the nature of how privatisation might work in deprived areas?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Lady may have gathered that it is somewhat unusual to intervene and ask a question about a statement when one has been present for only the last 10 minutes of the proceedings. I advise her to refer back to some of what has already been said.
However, I would not want the hon. Lady to start raising needless fears in Hackney or anywhere else. Regarding deprivation, and the Jarman index I am 99·9 per cent. certain that the borough of Hackney will qualify under the index we are using for higher payments per head for GPs serving the Hackney area.
Regarding the letter that the hon. Lady has, I hope that, whatever the political divisions between us, she will reply to the elderly lady repeating what I said a moment ago and saying that there is no prospect of her being deprived of any treatment at all. As I said earlier, the indicative drug budgets are an indication to a doctor of what it is believed his prescribing costs ought to be if he follows good clinical practice. If he over-subscribes he will be asked why and will be asked to justify his action to another doctor. If he cannot justify his action, it is possible that he will suffer penalties to his own pocket in his remuneration. In no circumstances will a cash limit be placed on his drug budget so that he is not able to prescribe for his patients so they can get the prescription dispensed at the chemist. To say anything different is complete nonsense and has nothing to do with our proposals.
My short answer is that the hon. Lady should write back to her constituent, telling her that her fears are groundless. Then yet another elderly patient need not be worried by some of the nonsense that has been circulated in recent weeks.

Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill

Again considered in Committee.

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Before I was interrupted to listen to the Vale of Glamorgan settlement of the doctors, I was discussing the matter of clause 2. From time to time I was diverted, particularly by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) who is PPS to the Secretary of State for the Environment was raising matters about lawyers. He actually started me talking about the devious nature of lawyers and about Government lawyers who are arguing the toss among themselves on the queston of barristers and solicitors. They are offended by the idea of the Lord Chancellor to merge the two professions.
However, I want to talk about clause 2 because my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has just arrived, and he has special knowledge of weights and measures, since he used to work in an industry in which such matters were discussed at length. He has a lawyer's analytical mind. When I first met him, I asked him what sort of Bill he would introduce if he won the ballot. He said that he had several in mind, including a Bill on weights and measures. He will probably tell us all about that later.
I am worried about a provision in subsection (5), which is designed to insert in subsection (6), after the words "An inspector" the words "or authorised person". What does that mean? It conjures up a lot of possibilities. Does it mean that we could have inspectors without proper qualifications? Will they be assessed? We have heard the Government talking about teachers needing assessment all the time, but apparently it is a different matter for inspectors. Apparently, proper assessments are not necessary for inspectors in the private sector.
For instance, the Chief Whip of the Labour party could appoint an inspector to look at the weighing machine in the cloakroom downstairs. That weighing machine is used by weight-watchers in this place. I do not have to use it. However, the weight-watchers fiddle the machine, and I suspect that such a person would be given the job as an "authorised person". Such people could go to meetings of weight-watchers and say that they have lost three stone when they have not.
If such appointments were made, how would we guarantee that machines were in order? Let us suppose one of these machines for weighing was in Harrods. I guess that, in fact, there are many such machines in Harrods. Let us suppose that an authorised person, not an inspector, was appointed to see whether the machines in Harrods were working properly. It could be Tiny Rowland dressed up.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Would the telephone be bugged?

Mr. Skinner: He has already bugged the telephone in Harrods. He could be an authorised person, or he could be called an observer. Or it could be Donald Trelford making inquiries for a new edition of The Observer. Such people could go to Harrods, under the guise of being an authorised person, supposedly an inspector, to see whether weighing machines were working properly and were tuned


to take account of Common Market measurements. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) who introduced the Bill said specifically that it was introduced so that we would be in advance of the Common Market in 1992.
So along goes this authorised person, probably Tiny Rowland, to Harrods to inspect the machines. What a time he would have. He could find out information on every single floor of Harrods. He could draw up another report for the Department of Trade and Industry. That report could be leaked and printed in a special edition of The Observer. That is the sort of danger that could occur under subsection (5). Any authorised person could go along to Harrods saying that he was an inspector under this Bill passed by the Tory Government.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The Consumers Association has set out its objections in a brief that it sent to hon. Members. Its main objection is that manufacturers and installers are likely to be the repairers of such weighing machines. That is an interesting point, which needs exploring.

Mr. Skinner: I have here the brief from the Consumers Association. As the Chair knows—

Mr. Forth: The Chairman.

12 noon

Mr. Skinner: Whatever it is. If we want to have a discussion about whether to say "Chair" or "Chairman" we can have one. We can discuss it as we debate clause 2 of the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill, but I do not think that Mr. Walker wants that. He is shaking his head. It is pretty clear that he is on my side. He wants to talk about the things in the Bill, such as authorised persons. He probably wants me to talk at length about whether the lawyers have drawn up a dodgy Bill for the Government because they are fed up to the back teeth with all the attacks made on their profession by Lord Mackay. However, that is another question.
The authorised person is an important issue. This is a weakness of the Bill, because it is saying to the people involved in manufacturing this equipment, "Don't worry about how good or bad it is because instead of having proper authorised inspectors to test it we will send along people who are one of us. They will be Tory-authorised persons, who will just go along, take a cursory glance at a machine and say, 'It's all right. Everything's in order'", when all of us know that we are not getting the proper weight for our goods.
The Tory Government have drawn up this Bill and then passed it to a Back Bencher. He has naively and innocently—no, not innocently. I have seen him talking to people who have something to do with this dodgy Bill. He has come along thinking that he can hoodwink us on this Friday morning, but I have this document from the Consumers Association. The Consumers Association is the body that produces that well-known publication Which?, about which I was talking when I was interrupted by the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Sedgemore: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, because my hon. Friend is a lawyer.

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend expressed concern about whether things would improve if Donald Trelford went into Harrods to inspect the weighing machines. Will my hon. Friend come down on one side or the other? Does he prefer the A1-Fayed standards of fair trading or the Lonrho standards?

Mr. Skinner: I am pretty well disposed to the idea that the big battalions in the Tory party or close to the Tory party are cutting one another's throats. When I see the A1-Fayeds, probably supplied with the Sultan of Brunei's funny money—he is a friend of the Prime Minister and of her son—falling out with the unacceptable face of capitalism, I think to myself, "There is a chance for Socialism here."
The Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with clause 2. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to it.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) was trying to get me to talk about the standards of fair trading in Harrods, and whether it was bought properly. I am not going to go down that road—not now—because I do not have the report from the Department of Trade and Industry in my hand. I did not expect to be discussing it this morning. If I had brought the report, I could have read out large chunks of it, and that would have been a story as well. It would probably have got more coverage than the statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the Vale of Glamorgan settlement with the doctors.
The Consumers Association sent us a brief—I hope that my hon. Friends will listen carefully to this, because it is no small point—in which it says that it was not properly consulted about this Bill. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, who has introduced this Bill with the connivance of the Tory Government, did not properly consult the Consumers Association. The Government talk about being the friend of the consumer, but they did not consult the body that for many years has been well known as representing consumers' interests. The second paragraph of the brief says:
Consumers Association's objection to the Bill is that it seeks to introduce only those recommendations which would be of benefit to those connected with the manufacturing industry, without adequate safeguards to protect the consumer.
That sentence tells us everything about the Bill.

Mr. Barron: That is not inconsistent with the legislation passed in the past 10 years. The Government should at least get one point for consistency. It is as well that my hon. Friend was here this morning early on, and able to scrutinise the Bill. From what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said, he consulted nobody and nobody consulted him. The Bill would have gone through without proper scrutiny were it not for the vigilance of hon. Members.

Mr. Skinner: We have had to do this on a number of Fridays. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare was to have introduced the Bill on another occasion, but disappeared from view. We were here about four Fridays ago discussing the Control of Smoke Pollution Bill, which was aimed at repealing the Clean Air Act 1956. My hon. Friend will understand our astonishment when we saw that that was the Government's aim. When we scrutinised the Bill, we found that it would only amend the Clean Air Act. They had got it wrong. The Government lawyers, or


the Government themselves, had produced a Bill that would do the opposite of what was intended. As a result of some close scrutiny over about three or four hours, we managed to persuade the House—it was one of those great victories that one can sometimes get on a Friday—that the amendments should be withdrawn before the Bill was passed.
We scrutinised that Bill as we are scrutinising this Bill, and we are able to show that the Consumers Association has a good argument. The Bill would have been nodded through this morning, in the wake of the by-election results, which some people are still studying. Some are active in their constituencies, but two or three of us managed to spot what was happening. Amendment after amendment was tumbling through the House without proper scrutiny and we stopped that. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) spoke at some length on this.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who was alert to this measure and what it could do. My hon. Friend spoke about Which? and paid tribute to it. Like my hon. Friend, it is the consumers' friend. Will not this measure, with its reference to the "authorised person" create problems for Which? Like many other people, I get the magazine, which shows all that one can buy in various lines. Will it not have immense problems with its reports? It will have to print, "Look out for 'authorised persons' stamped on it because we cannot say that the product that we tested is the one that you are buying or that it uses the right measures." The Bill will create immense problems for consumer magazines such as Which? in getting its information across clearly to consumers.

Mr. Skinner: That is the idea. The Government want to put consumers' interests at the bottom of the pile. They are interested only in people like the manufacturers of this equipment. No doubt, if we looked into where the profits of such manufacturers went, we would find some finishing up in the pocket of the Tory party. Instead of there being inspectors, there will be "authorised persons" who may allow changes, notwithstanding all the efforts made by the Consumers Association and Which?, which my hon. Friend apparently reads every week, along with defence magazines and other publications. I did not realise that my hon. Friend was reading so much material every day, and I commend him for that. I have only a cursory glance at Which? every now and again when a relevant Bill is coming before the House.
The Government are interested not in consumers but in profits for manufacturers. If they make machines that are dodgy and they are allowed to do so, they will make bigger profits. If that happens, they will say, "Well, it's pay-up day. The Tories have done us a good turn in Parliament". They will know that the Bill was smuggled through very nicely and that Labour Members were not ready for it. They will ask themselves what to do and the answer will be to give the Tory party a large sum of money, on top of what they have always given, for the next general election.

Mr. Sedgemore: It is payola.

Mr. Skinner: That is the word—my hon. Friend, who is a lawyer, uses such subtle terms. I am not sure whether it is a legal term.
Make no mistake, when the Government introduce Bills into the House they have three things in mind: to hammer the working-class, cut taxes for the wealthy and make big profits for the manufacturers who will put money into the Tory party funds. That is their policy in a nutshell. Such Bills should be in the Queen's Speech. If the Government want to introduce Bills of a political nature, why should they be allowed to let private Members smuggle them through? They are taking up time on a Friday when proper Bills could be introduced.
I can think of two or three Bills that should be discussed today. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has got a great Bill, which is designed to give pensioners proper living standards and proper pensions. It would ensure that they no longer pay standing charges. The Prime Minister does nol pay standing charges at No. 10, nor does she pay rent or rates. It is costing £5 million a year to run Downing street—more than it costs to run Buckingham palace. We should be discussing a proper private Member's Bill that would give pensioners a square deal as well as concessionary fares, not just in London and not just for part of the day. Instead of Ministers being carted about from one oak panelled study to the next in ministerial cars, with free drivers, we could have old-age pensioners travelling the country. That would be a proper Bill to discuss on Friday instead of—

The Chairman: Order. We should be discussing the stamping of equipment by authorised persons.

Mr. Skinner: I want to stamp the concessionary passes for bus and rail travel for pensioners. You understand that, Mr. Walker, as you are close to getting one if you have not already got one. What would be better than to have a comprehensive bus and rail pass for every pensioner in Britain?
Ministers talk about market forces, but the moment they reach 60 or 65 they get their bus pass. I saw Lord Keith Joseph getting his photo done and I wondered, "What is he getting his photo taken for?". It was for a bus pass. When he was a Minister he was the guru of market forces, but the moment he was no longer a Minister he was into public expenditure in a big way.
We want machines to stamp the passes and to produce them.

Mr. Forth: Not weighing machines.

Mr. Skinner: We would need measuring machines. Is the Minister saying that such passes could be churned out willy-nilly? Oh no. Something would be needed to measure and weigh any form of equipment used to produce those passes. We want inspectors rather than authorised persons to do that.

Mr. Sedgemore: What about self-authorisation by the pensioner?

Mr. Skinner: We could have that if necessary and if we had such a truly libertarian society that would be nirvana.
Here we are on a Friday morning discussing a tinpot Bill, which has not been properly drawn up by Government lawyers. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch is a lawyer and I have already explained why the Bill has not been drawn up properly—one of the Tories spilt the beans. There are lawyers in the Government who are so frustrated at the reforms that have been suggested in the other place that


they are beginning to put Bills before the House that are deliberately drawn up in a vague and obscure way. It is clear that they have said, "To hell with the Government. We'll give them a Bill that will cause some trouble." Such Bills have been drawn up by someone, in a moment of frustration over the new attack upon the legal fraternity. Those Bills are not the genuine article. That is why we have to scrutinise Bills even more nowadays, especially after the other day when we discussed a Bill that intended to repeal the Clean Air Act when it should have read "amend". I smelt a rat.

Mr. Wiggin: This is tedious repetition.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman did not have the guts to take on the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) when she appeared before him in the Select Committee on Agriculture. He did not ask her any of the right questions and yet he has the cheek to talk to me about tedious repetition. He should have used some tediously repetitive questions that day instead of being treated the way he was by that hon. Lady.

The Chairman: Order. All of this is a long way from clause 2 and is irrelevant to the stand part debate.

Mr. Skinner: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who originally referred to the Consumers Association, wants to make another reference to that matter.

Mr. Barron: The authorised person mentioned in clause 2 would replace local authority officers. When such officers are looking after the interests of consumers, they are subject to some form of democratic accountability. If people are authorised as suggested in the Bill, that would diminish, to some extent the relationship between democratic accountability and the inspectors. If my hon. Friend looks at the back page of the Bill, he will realise that it will probably cost jobs in local authorities. What does my hon. Friend think about the weakening of the democratic process as proposed in the Bill?

Mr. Skinner: Some time ago, representatives of the Labour local authorities, who are opposed to the Bill, sent us information about it when it first appeared on the agenda. It is probable that the environmental health department of local authorities employs such inspectors. If the Bill goes through, we shall have authorised persons, without proper credentials, doing the job. They could be taking a back-hander from companies—think about it.
Clause 2(5) states:
there shall be inserted the words 'or authorised person"'.
Suppose people come along who are not properly accredited, not connected to the local authority and therefore not subject to any public accountability. Suppose they are in the pay of the company concerned. We would have a real mess on our hands. There is a sinister side to the clause.
In the past few months everyone has been conscious about safety and the Government have sent Ministers to tell us how concerned they are about safety in this, that or the other. But here we are, the Government have connived with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare—he has admitted that the Bill was drafted by Governmnt lawyers.

That Bill will reduce inspectors' ability to do their job and it will allow any authorised person to take on that job. There is no doubt that this is not just an ordinary, innocent little measure contained in a Private Member's Bill.

Mr. Frank Haynes: My hon. Friend said that the local authorities are aware of what is proposed in the Bill. If I remember aright, Derbyshire county council was way out in front by spotting it first. It informed my hon. Friend about the Bill and yet other hon. Members who represent Derbyshire and who sit on the Conservative Benches have criticised that council for the amount of money that it spends, but it appears to be spending it in the right direction.

Mr. Skinner: It made representations in the middle of all the Government attacks upon it. There was a happy ending, because, despite all the targeting by the Tories, Derbyshire Labour authorities had a great success yesterday and now have 52 Labour members out of 84 seats. A seat was won by Labour next door to me, in Brackenfield. It was a great victory.

Mr. Greg Knight: Here comes more praise for Bookbinder.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman does not like it whenever I mention a great victory in Derbyshire. The hon. Gentleman, who is as partisan as any right hon. or hon. Member, does not like it, but he must lump it.

The Chairman: Order. No matter how great the victory, it has no relevance to clause 2.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it does. Derbyshire county council, fortified by that victory at Brackenfield, will say, "We were right to make representations about that distorted weights and measures Bill. We shall carry on our campaign in the knowledge that we have won another seat from the Tories and have a mandate." Although that council was saying, at the tether end of a four-year period, that we should oppose the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill, it—together with Nottinghamshire county council, in which Labour also made gains yesterday—will be able to say, "We were right to send messages to our Members of Parliament that they should oppose the Bill. The electors realise that the Tory Government are not on the side of the consumers, but only on the side of the manufacturers."
Not that there are many manufacturers. The question must be asked whether there will be Japanese machines or more Japanese machines? Will those firms have their own inspectors? If there are to be more Japanese manufacturers, where will their factories be located? Is the Bill part of the build-up to 1992? Will the Japanese manufacture machines in various parts of Great Britain so that they can overcome the barriers against third countries and invade the Common Market? Such a thing is conceivable. Account should be taken of the Japanese element. There will be many more Japanese manufacturers in the future, but many other factories will be closed.

Mr. Clive Soley: What will happen if the authorised person is Japanese and does not speak English?

Mr. Skinner: One may ask why the Japanese are coming to Britain rather than the French or Germans. Suppose that the Japanese spot the Bill and say to themselves, "Here is another little niche." The reason that


the Japanese come to Britain is that their second language is English, which is not the case with the French or Germans. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare considered that aspect, or perhaps the Government have but did not tell him.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend has not addressed the point that the authorised person must be appointed by the Secretary of State. The idea behind that is to centralise control away from local authorities. How will the Secretary of State know that the person who authorises is capable of performing the duties involved?

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, because in Wales another Secretary of State may be responsible. If the Secretary of State for Wales is made responsible for implementing one part of the Bill, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is made responsible for another, there is bound to be conflict. It is almost certain that the Secretary of State for Wales will come up with another coded message. We may not immediately understand it, and shall have to wait for the newspapers to do so. The Secretary of State for Wales will brief the press, saying, "When you read my speech on Monday, it will seem a bit vague and abstract, and a particular line should be explained as follows." We will pick up the newspapers and suddenly read a massive attack by the Secretary of State for Wales on the Prime Minister. The ordinary person may read that speech and be unable to piece it together, but it is the Lobby briefing that matters.
Much will depend on whether the Secretary of State for Wales keeps his job. I think that the right hon. Lady will sack him. That point is worth discussing at some other time, but 1 think that the right hon. Gentleman will get the chop after what he has been doing of late. It is just a question of the Prime Minister thinking to herself,"I can leave him there for the moment and blame him for the by-election defeat." I understand that the Vale of Glamorgan by-election has just been announced.

Mr. Greg Knight: What does that by-election have to do with clause 2?

Mr. Skinner: I will explain what it has to do with clause 2. Under the Bill, any authorised person can do what they like. A person can masquerade and enter a building saying, "Where is your weighing machine? I am an authorised person." Somebody could walk into a BBC studio and ask, "Where is your weighing machine? I am an authorised person."—and then walk into the studio, get on television, and announce the result of the Vale of Glamorgan by-election. That is what could happen.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: My hon. Friend makes an interesting digression about the Vale of Glamorgan by-election. I am sure that his comments are right and that the Labour majority has been huge. My hon. Friend is rightly suspicious about the Bill. Some years ago, the Government allowed not just building inspectors appointed by local authorities—which they still are up to a point—but others to do a similar job. Those other inspectors can be associated with a particular company. A person inspecting a building to ensure that it meets building regulations could be someone who is associated with the company constructing it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be concerned, and I should like him to

take that aspect into consideration. It is clear that the Government lawyers are only following the path that they have been wanting to follow for many years.

Mr. Skinner: The Bill represents a relaxation of rules that have been observed for many years. The Consumers Association briefing points out that the existing form of weights and measures has endured for 100 years, but the Government want to break it. We would all agree with the Government if they wanted to tighten up the legislation. If the Government lawyers who drafted the Bill—as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare admitted was the case—had tightened up the existing provisions, we would have said, "It is not a bad Bill and we shall give it a bit of a decent ride on a Friday. It looks as though the hon. Gentleman has introduced a Bill that will assist the consumer." But when one examines the Bill, one finds that it relaxes the existing rules, so that instead of having inspectors, there will be authorised persons who could be in the Tory party and who, in the words of the Prime Minister, could be "one of us". Those manufacturers will not be too concerned about their product.
Let us think about this. There will be weighing machines at the entrance to the Channel tunnel. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) laughs, but I can see it happening. And what kind of inspector is going to go there? Goods will be travelling not only to the 12 countries in the Common Market, but to countless others. The machines might have to measure in ecus, for instance—that is one of the new words that have come from the Common Market.
The entrance to the Channel tunnel is a dangerous place. Are we to allow an "authorised person" who is not a properly trained inspector to turn up there saying, "I am an authorised person. I have come to check this very important machine at the entrance to the Channel tunnel."? He might be someone who could be described as a terrorist, wanting to go beyond the weighing machine and into the tunnel.
12.30 pm
People will say—as they do now when there has been an accident—"Fancy that. Were there no proper health and safety inspectors?". We shall say, "No, because the Government have cut them back." Every time that inspections are cut back in this highly technological age it opens the door for accidents. That is another reason why we must oppose the idea of the authorised person as proposed in subsection (5). We might have to force it to a vote—and, judging by the ranks on the Conservative Benches, we might be successful. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has already agreed to withdraw subsection (4) because it has been found to be faulty.

Mr. Cohen: May I quote briefly from a letter from Cleveland county council objecting to the Bill? The letter says:
The Bill is being promoted by Jerry Wiggin MP (Weston Super Mare) who, amongst a clutch of interests, acts as a consultant to the National Federation of Scale and Weighing Machine Manufacturers.

Mr. Wiggin: I have declared my interest.

Mr. Cohen: I know that the hon. Gentleman has done that. Is it not a possibility, however, that the Secretary of State, who has taken powers to appoint authorised persons, would say to the hon. Gentleman, "You have been a good boy, getting this Bill through for the


Government. I shall make you the authorised person." The hon. Gentleman could then go back to his friends the manufacturers and tell them to do what they liked.

Mr. Skinner: I do not think that the Government would be as blatant as that. The hon. Gentleman has admitted a direct financial interest.

Mr. Cohen: But he would not be qualified as a local councillor.

Mr. Skinner: He would be disqualified. I may be being over-fair to the Government, beyond the bounds of reason, but I do not think that they would be so blatant. They would probably appoint someone just a step away to try to make it look right and proper.
Given all the inadequacies found in it this morning, I do not think that the Bill will get through.

Mr. Barron: We must wait and see.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, there is plenty of time, but many Labour Members are now beginning to represent the views of consumers. I note that the SLD and SDP Members have left. I say this merely in passing, but they play a very poor role in the House. They simply do not do their job. Some lawyer flitted in earlier and asked a question on the statement by the Secretary of State for Health, but then they all left. Where are they? Are they moping because they had a bad night at the election? A representative should be present.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is enormous scope for political patronage in the appointment of the authorised person? In the debate on the Widdicombe report, Labour Members were criticised for twin-tracking, but let us reflect on the scope for twin-tracking of unemployable Conservative supporters who might be appointed to "authorised person" posts all over the country. Were the business interests of the Prime Minister's son in Dallas to fall flat on their face, would there not be a risk of his emerging in this country as an authorised person? Then there is the grandson. In my view there is enormous scope for serious misuse of the powers of patronage.

Mr. Skinner: There are all those possibilities. I am not so sure that the Prime Minister would be too keen to let Mark have a job as an authorised person because he would lose his way. He would finish up looking for weighing machines in the desert. That is why they have all this electronic tagging. The Government first thought of that when he got lost in the desert. They said, "That's a good idea." That is why the Government have introduced electronic tagging, but I think that Mark would be a little unreliable.
To sum up—

Mr. Frank Haynes: Before my hon. Friend does that, is there not another angle? My hon. Friend referred to Conservatives being encouraged to take on the job of an authorised person. No doubt they would consider taking low earnings for it. The Government have created millions of lower-paid jobs. If they could convince

Conservatives to take it on, would they not hope that that would influence other people to take lower-paid jobs and to continue to suffer under this Administration?

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. Failed Ministers could become authorised persons. Every time the Prime Minister sacked somebody she could summon him to her office and say, "It's all right. You've had eight years and a good run for your money, but I don't like your braces these days." I suppose the conversation goes along that road. "Now it's goodbye. However, I've a little sinecure for you, as a weights and measures authorised person." The Government could have initials for that. They could include it in the Queen's honours. Mind you, I do not think that the Queen would accept it. If the Prime Minister went along to the Queen and said, "I've thought up a new honour for failed Ministers, as an authorised person" I do not think that the Queen would buy it. There is a lot of mucking down, to use a phrase, between the Prime Minister and the Queen, but that is a debate for another day—unless my hon. Friends want to develop it. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is right. To be an authorised person could be a nice little sinecure so that when Ministers were sacked they did not drop immediately right to the bottom. They could have this little job as authorised persons.

Ms. Abbott: My hon. Friend has made an important point about employing politicians who have come to the end of their days in party politics as authorised persons. As he said, it would be a nice little sinecure for them. That is why we want to delete subsection (5). Does my hon. Friend think that when the Opposition come to power we would appoint ex-Ministers as authorised persons? What criteria would we use? If the Bill is to get through, we have to examine the ramifications.

Mr. Skinner: I would make representations to the effect that if the Bill did get through—and I do not think that it will—the Opposition ought to repeal it. It would be a defective law. We ought to repeal it and not be tempted to recommend people as authorised persons, in the way that the Tories would. We should not go down that road one little step.

Mr. Cohen: Another point that worries me is the financial effects of the Bill. If the job of an authorised person could be a sinecure or an honour, those people might—like the people at London Regional Transport when it was made a quango—get chauffeurs. They do not go on the buses or the tube. When the Government appoint authorised persons under the Bill, they might say to the failed Ministers, "Have a car and a chauffeur." Could there not be a money element to the creation of authorised persons? Is not that an aspect that should be included in the Bill?

Mr. Skinner: The financial effects are spelled out in the Bill. They are a bit vague and could mean all things to all people, but the Bill states that it
will not involve any additional expenditure. The costs of administering and monitoring the scheme will be recovered as fees paid by authorised persons to central and local government. In the case of local government, the loss of testing fees"—
my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley was right about the removal of public accountability—
under the present system may result in a small overall reduction in the income of some authorities.


That is an attack on local government as authorities will lose income and manpower when hitherto they were responsible and publicly accountable for carrying out such inspections.
Finally, clause 2 should be opposed because subsection (5) contains the tremendous loophole for inspectors to be replaced by authorised persons. It is an attack on local authorities. The Bill is opposed by the Consumers Association, which has briefed every Member of Parliament saying that it was not properly consulted on the Bill before it came before the House. Opposition Members are not prepared to allow British consumers to be affected in that way. We want our weighing machines and other implements and equipment to be properly tested. We are not happy about the way in which inspectors are to be replaced by authorised persons. The Bill is a relaxation of the safety laws. For all those reasons, I oppose clause 2 of the Bill and I know that my hon. Friends will agree with me.

Ms. Diane Abbott: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in opposing clause 2, and particularly subsection (5) and the insertion of the notion of "authorised persons". I shall speak fairly succintly about that important issue.
There are three main reasons why we have to look very closely at subsection (5). Too many hon. Members are taking the question of weights and measures lightly, but important issues are at stake. First, in some constituencies the vote is weighed. It would not be enough for an authorised person to have checked the scales. Secondly, there is a big debate about measures in pubs, particularly in relation to wine. Thirdly, there is the general issue of the qualifications of an authorised person.
I shall begin by talking about constituencies where the vote is weighed. It would not be satisfactory to have only an authorised person inspecting those machines. At the time of the 1983 general election, I was working as a journalist for TV-am breakfast television. I was sent to do a piece on constituencies which in the past five or 10 years had been the first to declare. Certain constituencies were always the first to declare on election night, and Torbay and Guildford were among those constituencies.
Torbay holds the record for declaring first, so I went there with a film crew to find out exactly how they managed to declare first. Torbay is known as the English Riviera and used to be represented by Sir Frederic Bennett who has retired and been replaced by the present hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). I spoke at length to the chief executive and the returning officer and to people who had been involved in previous general elections in Torbay. I also found all the old film of the Torbay general election. There were many films of when Torbay had declared first. I asked the chief executive how Torbay always managed to declare its result first, despite the stiff competition. He replied, "I shall tell you the secret. First, we count the votes in the normal way, but when we check the result, instead of counting the votes manually, as all other constituencies do, we weigh them." I asked, "Is that legal?" He replied, "As far as I know it is." He took me into a back room in the town hall at Torbay and showed me the beautiful Victorian scales on which he weighed the vote as a second check on the ballot. That is why time after time Torbay managed to declare its vote first.
Those scales, old as they are, have to be checked by properly qualified inspectors with a good public reputation. They are appointed by a panel and their appointment is open to public scrutiny. Under clause 2(5) the inspection could be carried out by an "authorised person" and that could mean anybody. Therefore, the result in a constituency such as Torbay would be open to challenge.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: As the hon. Lady has not previously honoured us with her presence during the passage of the Bill and as she has not communicated with me in any way, it might be helpful if I explain to her that the Government will not issue a licence to anybody who does not conform to British standard 5750. I hope that she will accept that the Government will not issue a licence without the most rigorous inspection by a third and independent party. I want to ensure that that is clear in case the myth is promulgated further.

Ms. Abbott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the issue. My hon. Friends and I and those in the Public Gallery want to know what that rigorous inspection will entail. What qualifications will the inspectors have to have? Who will appoint them?

Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend the Minister will explain.

Ms. Abbott: The Minister is not at the Dispatch Box. He is sitting on the Back Benches talking to the hon. Member for Weston-super-mare (Mr. Wiggin). It looks as if I shall never know the answers.
It is important to get rid of clause 2(5) and to have a proper inspectorate, not an "authorised person".
A controversial issue which concerns my hon. Friends and myself is the measure of wine served in a public house or restaurant. We are concerned that the tests should be done by qualified inspectors. How do the public know how big a glass of wine will be when it is ordered in a bar or a restaurant? At least they now know that at some time an inspector might check the measures. Under the Bill, that check would be carried out by an "authorised person."
There has been a campaign to tighten up the way in which wine is served by the glass. A group of trade organisations introduced a voluntary code of practice in May 1984. It is a voluntary code but the inspectorate advised on it. Under this Bill, who knows who would advise on it. The code of practice states:
quantities of wine should be given alongside prices, on menus, wine lists and so on, and be displayed at bars and self-service counters.
quantities should conform with one of 11 specific glass sizes listed in the Weights and Measures Act 1963.
no bar or restaurant should sell wine by the glass in more than two measures, and the difference between these two measures should be at least two fluid ounces (or 50 ml)
As I understand it, the existing inspectorate is keen to ensure that the voluntary code is enforced. How are we to know that an "authorised person" will enforce it with vigour?
Conservative Members look bored, but this is not a trivial issue. A survey has been conducted to see whether the voluntary code has improved the measures served in pubs. The survey found that fewer than one in seven premises complied fully with the code. Therefore, in six out of seven wine bars or pubs one might be given short


measure. The survey also found that only one in six premises was displaying clearly the quantity and price. If those facts do not show the need for a properly qualified inspectorate, I do not know what does.

Mr. Gary Waller: In how many of those cases does the problem have anything to do with the equipment?

Ms. Abbott: The hon. Gentleman is not looking at the issue in a developed way. It is not just a matter of the equipment but of the political and administrative culture and the way in which the issue of weights and measures is perceived. There is no doubt that wine bars and restaurants would take the issue of short measures much more seriously if they knew that a qualified inspectorate was likely to check up. Such a qualified inspectorate should be supported by the House and its role should not be limited by clause 2(5).
Clause 2(5), which provides for authorised persons and detracts from the role of legitimate weights and measures inspectors, undermines and dilutes the political and administrative culture and will lead pubs and clubs to believe that they can give short measures.
The surveyors found that in over half the premises they visited staff were not even aware that there was a code for selling wine by the glass. How can staff take weights and measures seriously if Conservative Members do not take weights and measures inspectors seriously?

Mr. Waller: The hon. Lady was not present earlier, so I repeat that I speak as vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. Is she aware that if weights and measures inspectors did not have to spend so much time on routine tasks they would have more time to deal with genuine abuses such as the giving of short measures in pubs because of human error or intention rather than anything to do with equipment? The hon. Lady is speaking against the interests of the consumer, who would be better served if trading standards officers had more time to deal with genuine abuses of the weights and measures regulations.

Ms. Abbott: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should describe the provisions of clause 2(5) as trivial. Is he aware that in the 18th century there were bread riots because of under-weight bread? The issue of equipment and weights and measures is by no means trivial. If one visited the Vale of Glamorgan this morning, where the Labour party has won the by-election with a 6,000 majority, and asked those 6,000 people who constitute the Labour majority—

Madam Deputy Chairman (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am not sure that this is relevant. The hon. Lady said that she would be succinct. I am waiting for her to fulfil that claim.

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said that trading standards officers do not want to carry out trivial tasks. I have a letter from the county of Cleveland, in which it clearly takes the view that self-verification by manufacturers under local authority trading standards officers' supervision is a reasonable development. However, it does not want to hand over all powers of supervision to the industry, which is the key

point that the hon. Gentleman avoided. The Government want to hand verification to the industry to spite local authorities, whereas it should be under independent local authority supervision.

Mr. Wiggin: Precisely for that reason, and at the request of the Association of County Councils, I tabled an amendment requiring that local trading standards officers should be consulted before a licence is granted. If the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) had read the amendments and understood the Bill he would understand that I have done precisely what has been asked for.

Ms. Abbott: It must be wrong to hand verification to manufacturers.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Just to reinforce my hon. Friend's point, would she like to dwell on the relevance of the Labour majority in the Vale of Glamorgan by-election, which was 6,028 votes?

Ms. Abbott: Conservative Members have said that this is a trivial matter. More than once, they have said that the powers given to authorised persons are trivial. Each and every one of the 6,000-odd people who constitute the Labour majority in the Vale of Glamorgan by-election would say that this is not a trivial matter. We do not want verification handed over to the industry.

Mr. Cohen: I am sorry to have an argument with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) through my hon. Friend, but perhaps she would like to comment on the supervision provided through local authorities. Cleveland county council makes it clear in its letter that this private Member's Bill is a shabby process to avoid consultation. If this were a Government Bill, the Government would be forced to consult local authorities and trading standards officers fully. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare to say that he wants to move an amendment providing for consultation, but that will be too late. The Bill will have been passed and rights taken away. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Ms. Abbott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. What he has said about local authorities confirms that the Bill is not in the consumers' interest. Why has not the Bill come forward as a Government measure, with proper consultation? It is all well and good for the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare to say that he will move an amendment at this late stage. Why was not there full consultation before with local authorities and consumers?
Self-verification by the industry is a grave matter. Interpolation of so-called authorised persons as properly trained weights and measures inspectors is a serious matter, and clause 2 must be opposed. Conservative Members argue that authorised persons are needed because the weights and measures inspectorate does not have the time to verify equipment. If they are worried about the shortage of staff in the inspectorate and want to lessen the work load, they should argue for more rate support grant for authorities such as Cleveland so that they can employ as many weights and measures inspectors as it takes to check scales and pub measures and supervise pub staff who are pouring drinks. The Bill creates a shabby half-and-half twilight cast of authorised person to take work from the weights and measures inspectorate.
Weights and measures work is a distinguished calling. I had a lot to do with such people when I was on the environmental health committee of Westminster city council. As Westminster is in the centre of London, weights and measures is a pressing issue. Conservative Members who are serious about reducing the inspectors' work load and want them to do a good job should demand and fight for more money for local authorities so that they can employ staff and trainees and open the profession. If that happens, the weights and measures issue will be dealt with once and for all. The answer is not the creation of authorised persons but more fully qualified weights and measures inspectors.

Mr. Cohen: I have referred to the letter from the Cleveland county council, a Labour local authority which opposes the clause. Is my hon. Friend aware that not just Labour local authorities oppose it? The London borough of Sutton, which is not a labour authority, has made a number of points that have been raised in the debate. Its letter states:
These are important and significant matters which could reduce the level of consumer protection and requires proper consultation, publicity and parliamentary debate.
The letter calls for:
Support in opposing the Bill unless and until such time as all affected parties have been consulted and the rights of the consumer receive adequate protection.
That letter is from a Conservative authority, so it can be seen that opposition to the Bill runs across the political spectrum.

1 pm

Ms. Abbott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the fact that the Bill is opposed not only by Labour authorities, but by other authorities, whether Conservative or SLD—although after the recent county council elections there are few SLD councils now. The only one left is the Isle of Wight and that is a jolly good thing too, because the SLD is not competent to run a local authority.
Clause 2 is opposed by local authorities whatever their political persuasion. Local authorities, including Conservative authorities, believe that the clause will lessen the protection available to the consumer.
Yet the Bill is being put through as a private Member's Bill on a Friday, with no Conservative Back Bencher now present. This is supposed to be the era of heightened interest in consumers, yet they will have their protection lessened by the Bill and especially by clause 2. That is an outrage. If Conservative Members were serious about the problems of the weights and measures inspectorate they would not be supporting the Bill. This is a vested interest Bill which will help industry.
If we look at the history of weights and measures, we see that many serious disturbances were caused by short measures and short weights, especially of bread. I read history and I remember learning of the bread riots of the 18th century. We should remember the seriousness of short weight and we should realise that even now some authorities weigh votes. No one had to weigh the votes in the Vale of Glamorgan, but we had a sizeable majority of more than 6,000. In the next general election, we may need to weigh the votes.

Madam Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady must speak to clause 2.

Ms. Abbott: Labour Members would not want "authorised persons" to weigh votes in the Vale of Glamorgan. We would want proper weights and measures inspectors to verify the fact that our majority at the next general election had shot up from 6,000 to 30,000.
The issue we are debating is significant. Discussions about short measures go on in pubs and wine bars. When we consider the pathetic inadequacy of the measures in this private Member's Bill, we see that, instead of a fully staffed, properly paid and properly respected group of weights and measures inspectors, we shall have a shabby group of people known as "authorised persons", and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has not said what qualifications they will need to have.
The Bill has been promoted, whether consciously or unconsciously, by industry interests. It will help only the interests of industry.

Mr. Wiggin: What is wrong with that?

Ms. Abbott: The hon. Gentleman asks—

Mr. Wiggin: What is wrong with its helping the interests of British industry?

Ms. Abbott: What is wrong is that Parliament is supposed to be concerned with the interests of all groups and individuals, not just industry, even British industry. We are supposed to be concerned about the consumer, the housewife, the person who shops in the market and the supermarket and the customer in the pub and the wine bar. It would be wrong for any hon. Member to be thought to represent sectional interests.
The Bill has been promoted, consciously or not, by the interests of industry. The Bill serves no purpose but the greater convenience and interest of industry. The Bill pays no heed to the voices of consumers, local authorities or professionals.
The Bill will do nothing to meet the concerns of people about the weights and measures of such things as bread. It will do nothing to help the people of Torbay who are anxious to know about the methods used to weigh their votes in elections. It will not help the more than 6,000 people who constitute the Labour majority in the Vale of Glamorgan. This is an age in which the voice of the consumer is heard in the land—which includes the Vale of Glamorgan with its 6,000 Labour majority. But the Bill is deaf to the voice of the consumer. I urge the Committee to oppose not only the clause but the entire Bill.

Mr. Barron: I am sure that the Bill's promoter will agree that clause 2 is the heart of the legislation. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) made a sedentary intervention about protecting British industry and asked what was wrong with that. I do not think that any Opposition Member would want to do anything other than protect British industry. We all help industry in our constituencies, and sometimes we help it by supporting legislation. However, we do not want to weaken the voice of the consumer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) gave a graphic example of short measure in wine bars. It would be difficult, even with electronic measures, to stamp out such practices. I am sure that the Bill's promoter will recognise that it is feasible to have a machine that records exact measure. The Bill deals


with machinery that not only weighs consumer products passed over the counter, but the new equipment that we see in supermarkets.
I understand that the official term for price marking in supermarkets is bar coding. If a customer goes to the supermarket for a product that does not have the price stamped on it, it will not be until she gets to the checkout that she will know how much it costs. That is because the product has on it this strange bar coding that has to be zipped over using a piece of equipment. That is difficult to understand, even in present day society, as a means of measuring prices. The equipment is currently covered by trading standards officers and its development needs to be carefully watched.
The bar coding system is used in all major retail outlets and now that corner shops are disappearing, we no longer see goods measured in pounds and ounces. We are moving into the age of electronics and the machines in use are not as perfect as people would like them to be.
One of the criticisms levelled by the Consumers Association is that the people who are responsible for the repair and maintenance of electronic machines do not set them up properly. I am sure the promoter will acknowledge that not every retail outlet has the same type of machine. My brother has a small butcher's business in Rotherham, and his machine is very good. When it has been programmed it shows the customer the exact price per pound, and how much the meat weighs and costs when it is placed on the scale. It is complicated machinery and, if it is not set up correctly, all sorts of things can go wrong. Different types of machine are involved. Small businesses repair these machines, and they have been called back in the past by trading standards officers when machines have not measured correctly.
Therefore, this legislation affects not only British industry but, more importantly, it affects consumers. Any changes to this legislation should make the position of the consumer stronger, not weaker. Local authorities, who have a statutory responsibility in this area, have said to Members and to well-respected consumer associations that they have misgivings about the Bill.

Ms. Abbott: I raised the question of the consumer most judiciously, and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) talked with some sharpness about what was wrong with doing something in the interests of British industry. Does that not suggest to my hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman may be aware, in the bottommost recesses of his heart, that this Bill really does nothing for consumers? Would the sharpness of his retort not indicate a touch of guilty conscience about how consumers are affected by this Bill?

Mr. Barron: That is difficult to deal with, without hazarding a guess about the hon. Gentleman's position in British industry.

Mr. Wiggin: Let us be clear about the consumer interests; they were represented on the Eden committee, which was unanimous in its findings, with this Bill being part of its recommendations in its findings.

Mr. Barron: Before the hon. Gentleman actually said it, I was about to point out that the Bill contains only part of the recommendations of the Eden committee. Certainly, it

does not contain all of the recommendations. It has been alleged that this could be considered a quasi-Government Bill rather than a private Member's Bill. We believe, as do people involved in drawing up the Eden report, that it would have been right and constitutionally proper, Madam Chair, for the Minister to have proposed the Bill on behalf of the Government.

Madam Deputy Chairman: I may not be addressed as "Chair". We are in Committee. The hon. Gentleman should refer to me by name.

Mr. Barron: I apologise.
We would have been much happier if the Government had adopted a more comprehensive approach to the recommendations and introduced from the Dispatch Box a Bill containing all, and not some, of the recommendations of the Eden committee. That would have been a better procedure than this private Member's Bill.

Ms. Abbott: The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Weston-super-Mare, said that the Bill included part of the recommendations of the Eden committee. Would my hon. Friend not agree that this is definitely one of those situations in which half a loaf is not better than no bread? What should have happened is that a Government Bill should have been drawn up to take into account all the recommendations of the Eden committee, particularly acknowledging interests other than those of the very narrow sectional interests of British industry.

Mr. Barron: I was making that point, and my hon. Friend is right to echo it. Most people involved in the industry, certainly those involved in the Consumers Association, felt that the Bill would have been better if it had included all the recommendations of that committee. I thought that we were here to protect the interest of the consumer.
1.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) talked about the Grantham grocer's shop. We have all heard stories about the grocer who, when weighing out the sugar—before it came in its pre-packed form with the bar code—kept his little finger on the scales as the sugar was going into the packet, then lifted it off with the sugar saying, "Here you are, that is sixpence". We have moved on from those times and there is much more pre-packaging, although many retail outlets still operate in that way. Some shops have bulk-bought stuff in big tubs, which is cheaper if one does not mind buying in that way. Other products are bought in bulk and then sold on to the next person down the line, and they also use scales. Therefore, many of the points made in the report would have been better dealt with under a more comprehensive Bill that took into account all the different ways of retailing food.

Ms. Abbott: This important point illustrates the significance of the Bill. As my hon. Friend said, the goods in most shops are pre-packaged, so there is no need for a weights and measures inspectorate, but the sector of the population particularly concerned about the Bill, the accuracy of weights and measures and a properly developed inspectorate, is the elderly. Elderly people do not go into a supermarket to buy half a pound of cheese. They prefer going to small corner shops and buying two


ounces of cheese, or one rasher of bacon, or a slice of ham, which is weighed out for them. Therefore, they are particularly concerned.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend is right. As I said earlier, I have an interest to declare in that my brother works in the retail business as a butcher. He has a small shop in Rotherham and he has to compete against the major retail outlets—the supermarkets and the hypermarkets where one can go in and buy everything that one wants for the garden and the home. That makes things difficult for the small retailer and many of his customers are those whom my hon. Friend has described, who would be seeking the protection of the local authorities via the inspectors from the local weights and measures department who inspect the weights and measures machines in retail outlets. That is why it is vital that the Bill is made more comprehensive.
Under clause 2, once the authorised person has been agreed and has paid a fee to the Secretary of State, as set out in clause 1, to which the Committee has already agreed, he has the right
to test and stamp equipment".
There could be a conflict of interest if such a person were also being paid under contract to service the machines. Under the present system, all new or repaired equipment has to be tested by inspectors, but clause 2(5), will add authorised persons to the system. Inspectors are trading standards officers in my local authority and, I suspect, in other local authorities as well. By law those officers are prohibited from having any financial or other type of interest in the manufacture or repair of the equipment that they check.
If the Bill is passed we are led to believe that the inspectors will still oversee the work done by others—the authorised persons. The inspectors have no interest except a professional one—to look after consumer interests in various outlets. In clause 2, however, authorised persons will take over the checking of machines when they are installed. We assume that they will check the repair and any adjustment subsequently made to those machines, prior to the inspector checking them.
Although we are discussing clause 2, other parts of the Bill affect local authorities in terms of jobs as well as finance. It appears that the present system of inspectors is to be run down, but they have a statutory responsibility and they cannot have a vested interest in any of the work that they undertake.
I know that the Government's record for funding local government is not good. Their treatment of local government employees is not much better. Almost every other week in this House another Bill is introduced that is designed to remove local government employees, whether through privatisation or competitive tendering, as it is called by the Government.
It would be wrong if the Bill weakened the protection currently given to consumers by our trading standards officers. That fear, which has been expressed by my hon. Friends, is also shared by various consumer associations. In those circumstances we should reconsider whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. The change in the relationship between trading standards officers and retail outlets should be considered in detail during our deliberations on the Bill.
The Bill will take away from the local authorities the statutory responsibility to test and verify machines on installation, and any subsequent repairs. The system will

be subjected to a quasi-privatisation as a result of the appointment of authorised persons. Control will move back to Whitehall because the Secretary of State will have the power to appoint such authorised people. The Bill will centralise rather than decentralise. From the Government's rhetoric we are led to believe that they want to roll back the powers of the state, but in reality we know that power is being centralised all the time. The Bill is yet another example of that process.

Ms. Abbott: It is clear that state control is being broken down through glasnost and so on in the East and in Russia. Is it not extraordinary that the Bill and especially clause 2(5), are designed to increase the power of the state?

Mr. Barron: I agree with that well-timed and well-intentioned intervention. What is so upsetting is that local authorities have a fine and honourable record with their work in weights and measures. They currently undertake those responsibilities in statute but impartially and with no vested interest other than that of the consumers whom they are professionally employed to protect. I would sooner see consumer interests vested in local authorities, who reflect their local regions and who understand all aspects of life in their local communities, and who know whether or not the public are getting a good deal and not a short measure when buying certain items currently protected by local authority responsibility, by statute.

Ms. Abbott: Consumers are very satisfied with the existing system of local authority verification. Has the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) introduced his Bill in response to consumer pressure? If consumers have written to him in their hundreds and thousands, why are they not writing to other right hon. and hon. Members?

Mr. Barron: That question is really directed at the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, and I give way so that he may enlighten the Committee on that point.

Mr. Wiggin: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the Bill before coming to the House and making an attempt to filibuster it out of existence, he would have found that it has nothing to do with changing the law in relation to trading standards officers and their ordinary duties in monitoring machines that are used for the sale of goods. The Bill is solely about self-verification by people who have passed the most stringent independent tests. I wish I knew why there is such deep opposition to the Bill. If any right hon. or hon. Member had been prepared to discuss it with me, I would have been happy to try to meet their demands, as I did in respect of representations by trading standards officers and the Association of County Councils, who had the courtesy to approach me. The amendments are a result of those negotiations. I do not understand why such a body of opinion should be generated against an innocent little Bill that will help about a dozen British manufacturers.

Ms. Abbott: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Chairman. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare to accuse hon. Members with a deep and longstanding interest in weights and measures of filibustering.

Madam Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view, and he is not offending against the Standing Orders of the House by expressing it.

Mr. Barron: I concur with the hon. Gentleman when he rightly points out that he was approached by interested bodies and subsequently proposed amendments to the Bill, to which I have no objection. If the Bill progresses, those amendments should obviously be incorporated. However, the hon. Gentleman makes mention only of those interested parties who approached him. One would have thought that any right hon. or hon. Member introducing legislation in this area would have consulted credible consumer associations—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Chairman: Order, there must be only one debate at a time in this Chamber. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has the Floor.

Mr. Wiggin: I repeat my earlier remark that the Eden committee was unanimous in its findings and that the Government responded to its recommendations. The Bill is the result of something that has already been agreed after consultations that took place two or three years ago.

Ms. Abbott: Not on this Bill.

Mr. Barron: The Eden committee was established in 1984 and comprised representatives of all interested parties, including manufacturers and installers, repairers, users, central and local government, and consumers, and had an independent chairman in Dr. Eden himself.
Let me ask the hon. Gentleman a direct question. Did the consumers—and we are here to represent them rather than anyone else on that committee—propose any change not covered by the hon. Gentleman's amendment to his Bill? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head? Let me ask him, then, why the Consumers Association—a very creditable organisation—now says that it is opposed to certain parts of the Bill?

Mr. Wiggin: I am sorry to say that, contrary to its reputation, the Consumers Association failed to ask for an explanation of the Bill. It has made a number of allegations which, frankly, are wrong. I have sent the association a detailed analysis of its objections, but if it had produced them earlier I could have enlightened it. I am forced to conclude that the association knows as little about the matter as the hon. Gentleman clearly does.

Mr. Barron: I suppose that that remark is in order.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that he should be consulted on high. I have just spent a good deal of time dealing with the Electricity Bill, another measure of interest to consumers. I shall divulge nothing except that extensive discussions have taken place between not only the Opposition but the Government—the Bill's promoters—and about 10 of the leading consumers' associations. The Government rightly consider it necessary to consult those associations about the changes imposed on consumers. There seems to be a contradiction here. If this is a Government Bill by another name, why is the hon. Gentleman, as a representative of the Government, saying, "You must come and see me. I am not prepared to contact you."?

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I hope that my intervention will not provoke another barrage of personal insults from the Conservative Benches. Such conduct is entirely unnecessary.
Is not the test of the Bill, and of clause 2 in particular, very simple? At present an independent body, with its own professional standards and codes of ethics and behaviour, carries out the testing and stamping of weighing machines. The Bill seeks to allow in-house testing and stamping by people who are not party to the training course run by that professional body, and thus to make in-house stamping the prerogative of the elite at the expense of the many—and, ultimately, at the expense of the consumer.

Mr. Barron: That is the truth. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said earlier that nothing about the inspections would change, but if a new retail outlet was set up it would surely have to be inspected before it could trade, and under the Bill an authorised person could do that. The hon. Gentleman nods. That constitutes a change.
The hon. Gentleman said earlier—and it is fair comment—that this was only part of the recommendations of the Eden report. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must be familiar with the briefing sent by the Consumers Association to all Members of Parliament, as he is the Bill's surrogate promoter. The association did indeed agree with the report. Its briefing states:
We welcomed the recommendations of the 'Eden Report on Metrological Control' when it was published in 1985. Indeed, Eden's proposals were remarkable, in being endorsed by all parties—manufacturers, inspectorate and consumer representatives alike.
After such strong endorsement by all the parties concerned, it is strange that we should be discussing a Bill that contains only part of the recommendations that were so widely endorsed.
The Consumers Association brief continues:
The Consumers Association's objection to the Bill is that it seeks to introduce only those recommendations which would be of benefit to those connected with the manufacturing industry, without adequate safeguards to protect the consumer.
If that is the case, every hon. Member ought to be worried that the Bill protects only industry. I accept that industry needs to be protected but the interests of industry should not be protected if consumer standards are likely to suffer. The Consumers Association's argument is good and strong and I am prepared to accept it. A more comprehensive measure should have been introduced.

Ms. Abbott: Is it not the case that the parliamentary adviser to the National Federation of Scale and Weighing Machine Manufacturers has completely failed to take on board the interests of the consumer? The Eden committee first sat in 1984. Its recommendations were published in June 1985. Between 1985 and 1989 the retail industry has moved forward. There are new products; there is also new packaging and new machinery. Does that not make even more pressing the case for proper consultation? Does that not make it even more regrettable that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) failed to consult the interested parties before he introduced the Bill?

Mr. Barron: Yes, it is regrettable. Even the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare may have some regrets about the Bill not being more comprehensive, by taking into account the interests of consumers as well as the interests of British industry.
One of the main objections of the Consumers Association is to self-verification. It says:
Self-verification should not be applied to installers and repairers until its success in relation to manufacturers has been assessed. Most manufacturers are in a position to ensure that adequate quality assurance and control measures are built into their manufacturing processes. This cannot be said for repairers, most of whom tend to be small businesses, often working away from their own premises and performing many different types of repair work on many different types of machine.
I raised that point earlier. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare nodded his head in appreciation of that very important point when I raised it earlier.

Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has taken account of the proposed changes. Provisions relating to installers and repairers would not come into force immediately; they would he postponed. Some of the Eden committee's proposals will come before the House later, but there can be no guarantee that if the Bill is not passed account will then be taken of the provisions in the Bill. By preventing the Bill from passing into law, the kind of safeguards to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and which have been taken into account will not exist.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Member's intervention draws me back to clause 1, which I shall not discuss in detail as we are debating clause 2. At present, clause 1 does not stop the threat of that happening even after the amendments have been made. We keep returning to the fact that the parties involved in the investigations and the conclusions of the Eden report were broadly in agreement. Although I cannot speak for the Labour Front Bench, that suggests to me that if a comprehensive Bill that covered all issues had been produced there would have been all-party agreement in the House and such a Bill would have been passed in far less time than we have spent in Committee this morning discussing whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. Many questions arise from that, but I understand that they cannot be discussed in a debate on clause 2 stand part. If I were to ask or answer those questions, I should be moving away from the subject of the debate.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the intervention by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) appeared to contain an element of blackmail suggesting that either we let the Bill through now, slightly amended, or those concessions will not appear in any future Bill? The main issue is how to protect the consumer, and threats are perhaps not the best way to do that.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend may well be right.
Although I always listen with interest to anything said by Conservative members that is helpful to the debate, it may be that there is a certain threat on that matter. That is normally left to the usual channels and to Government Departments and not to procedural issues in Committee. Had the Bill been thought through properly and had the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare lobbied the Minister, it might have been thought that the proper place and time for the Bill was not on a Friday in private Members' time but from the Dispatch Box on another day, properly promulgated by the relevant Government Department instead of a private Member.

Mr. Cohen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the checks

and balances for weights and measures for protecting consumers and assisting industry have existed for a long time and the Bill, which benefits the industry at the expense of the consumer, upsets those checks and balances? Does he agree that it would have been quite simple to include some protection for the consumer and, particularly, the local authority powers? In the four or five years since the Eden report, there have been plenty of opportunities to work out those measures.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend is right, but the five-year gap is not the responsibility of the promoter of the Bill. It would be wrong to blame him for the deficiencies in the Bill which seeks to enact only certain provisions of the Eden report. The responsibility rests with the Department of Trade and Industry. Unfortunately, we cannot even blame the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs as he is a recent appointee, and a shock appointee, as I recall from the public comments made by some of his hon. Friends—I use the expression lightly—when he was appointed. The person who held his position during the years from 1985 is responsible for the fact that the Bill contains only some of the recommendations in the Eden report.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has been open and honest about the fact that the Bill is designed more to help industry than consumers. That is why I oppose clause 2.

Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that consumers will experience some expense. Does he seriously and honestly believe that the Department of Trade and Industry would smile on a Bill if it knew that there was the slightest shred of evidence that that was the case? He should bear in mind that several western European countries already have self-verification. Is he aware that the Community will be proposing self-verification in the near future? There is not a shred of evidence that the 13ill will harm the consumer.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, in one of his interventions during my speech, he accepted that, in some instances—especially after installation or repairs—some machinery has had to be adjusted after its inspection by the proper statutory authority. How can we give authorised persons a licence, even for an interim period, if we know that, in the past, they have got it wrong? That is where the protection of the consumer begins to weaken, and it is highlighted by the Consumers Association.
The hon. Gentleman should have consulted the Consumers Association before coming to the House. He did not do so and he has given his reasons. The association fears that, because trading standards officers have had to adjust machinery in the past, that machinery may not be accurate after the enactment of the Bill.
There are drawbacks about extending the licensing provisions to those who install the equipment. The Bill would remove the existing requirement for an inspector to be present when bar coding tills are installed. Bar coding tills are in use in many of our retail outlets. They inform the customer electronically of the price of the goods. One would need to have a mind like a calculator to remember


the price of the sugar when reaching the checkout because in a hypermarket the shelf could be a quarter of a mile away.
In those circumstances, it is important that the equipment is accurate at all times. It should not be left simply to the person who installs the machine. Consumers should not have to wait until the local authority trading standards officer has time to visit the supermarket or hypermarket to check the accuracy of the machine. If we are to look after consumers' interests, the first item purchased in a retail outlet using that system must show that the price is being recorded properly before the other items are purchased.

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend has probably read, as I have, about the problems with bar coding. When prices change, one price can be displayed but another barred through so that one is charged the original price and not the displayed reduced price. What damage will be done if such problems are left to self-verification?

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am not surprised that he raised it because he is not only an hon. Member but a member of the legal profession. I am sure he is well aware of the introduction of new technology into retailing and its effect on consumers, and of individual consumers who are in dispute with a retailer about the cost of an item.

Ms. Abbott: I am sure that my hon. Friend has read, as I have, the Government's response to the report of the Eden committee, entitled "Metrological Control of Equipment for Use for Trade". For the benefit of other hon. Members who may not have read it, I shall read a paragraph that has some bearing on the debate. It says:
The action which the Government proposes to take on the Report will undoubtedly be helpful to industry. However, the Government will take no step which could compromise fair trading—The Government believes that the basis of fair trading is the acceptance by all parties that the regulatory framework is reasonable. It is therefore especially pleased that the Report was unanimous and that reform in this area can be accepted by all interested parties without controversy.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason for this morning's controversy is that Labour Members believe that the Bill will compromise fair trading, in complete contradiction to that paragraph in—

Madam Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is making a long intervention. Has she concluded?

Ms. Abbott: Yes.

Mr. Barron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She has much expertise in this sector. I suspect that her previous job as an elected member of a local authority gave her much practical experience, which I did not have before becoming an hon. Member, in overseeing trading standards. I lack such experience, but having been a consumer all my life gives me a direct interest in the contents and passage of the Bill.
The Consumers Association said that the appointed system—the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has not dealt with this yet—has certain implications for local authorities. It says that more checks and inspections are required and that
the Bill contains an admission that it could lead to less staff.

That point was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who said that other parts of the Bill could lead to losses of staff. The Consumers Association was concerned that
Local authorities will also lose income which they currently receive from certifications. Such income offsets the expenditure incurred in maintaining their highly specialised and complex test equipment. Yet such equipment will still have to be maintained to test the work of non-licensed holders.
Another part of the Bill states that local authorities are likely to lose out. In this age of attacks on local authority expenditure, can authorities sustain a department with enough staff and equipment to test scales used by retail outlets? In years to come, will there be sufficient protection for the consumer? Current amendments to the Weights and Measures Act 1985 are defective.

Ms. Abbott: My hon. Friend has referred to possible cash losses for local authorities. He will be aware of this statement in the White Paper:
The Government recognises that inspectors will need training for the additional functions connected with self-verification … It will discuss with local authorities how this should be organised and funded.
The Government are aware of the implications for local authorities. Have there been discussions with the local authorities about organisation and funding of special training for the inspectorate?

Mr. Barron: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. If the Government, who have responsibility for these matters, had wanted to do something about the Eden committee's report, they would have introduced a comprehensive Bill containing all the answers and results of consultations with the Department of Trade and Industry. Instead, we have to guess whether the functions of trading standards officers in overseeing are sufficiently protected.

Mr. Cohen: I again take up the point about loss of local authority jobs, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) have referred. Is there not a familiar vicious circle? There is a shortage of people doing this expert work; a wave of complaints because standards have dropped and the industry has taken liberties; and the Government say that the local authorities are not doing the job properly so they will take away those functions. That vicious circle is seen in other aspects of civil services where people should be protected. Is there not a danger in cutting jobs and thereby setting that train in motion?

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend has made a strong and precise point. He did not use the phrase "free market", but if the number of trading standards officers and their services were reduced, it would be open for people to say, "When you go to any of the major retail outlets using this equipment, you will be in the hands of the manufacturer, repairer, installer or retailer."
2 pm
There is one question above all about which consumers and the organisations that represent them are concerned. We are all, of course, well aware of the growth in the number of advice centres and consumer organisations. Those organisations have commented to me and, I am sure, to other hon. Members that they feel it is incomprehensible that out of the strong recommendations


in the Eden report, which were supported by the organisations, a selection of recommendations has been brought forward in the Bill. They fear, as I do, that if we accept the Bill, although some of its provisions are acceptable and there are sections of the British industry we want to encourage, we shall not see the other recommendations of the report carried out in legislation.
The Government, and especially the Department of Trade and Industry, have sat on the committee's conclusions for so long. They have now seen an avenue for some of them, but they dare not bring a Bill forward directly at the Dispatch Box because they have included only a few of the recommendations and ignored the others. For that reason, the clause should not stand part of the Bill and if there is a Division, I shall vote against it.

Mr. Cohen: I want to weigh in with my measured opposition to clause 2—if that is an appropriate way to start. We have had weights and measures regulations that have worked well over the years. They were initiated in the Magna Carta and what was got out of King John is being eroded under Queen Maggie.
There are inspectors of weights and measures working for local authorities throughout the country and I pay tribute to them. They do an outstanding job and they are unbiased. Clause 2 represents an erosion of their work and of their traditional and successful public service. I am pleased that my hon. Friends have taken the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill properly, because it would otherwise have gone through untouched and would have seriously eroded that public service. The Bill would have been a short measure in more ways than one.

Ms. Abbott: It is important to pay close attention to the recommendations of the Eden committee, to which hon. Members have often referred. The committee said, on the powers of the inspectors:
It may be necessary to give inspectors additional powers in connection with their duties to undertake the quality audit of organisation.
Where in the Bill are such additional powers provided?

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the Eden report. As has been said, the Bill is a partial implementation of that report. Only those parts that benefit industry have been taken and the Bill has not included anything that will benefit the consumer. My hon. Friend was right to mention that key complaint of many of the people who have objected to the Bill.
I apologise to the Hansard reporters who have been sending me notes since I intervened during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The notes ask for copies of the letters from the county of Cleveland and from the London borough of Sutton. I have not been able to send those letters up, but shall do so when I have finished my speech because I want to quote from them again. I apologise for not having responded to the Hansard requests.
A letter from Mr. S. P. Jones, the professional assistant to Cleveland council, was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). The letter makes several points and I shall briefly allude to them. It says:
The bill by being a private members bill avoids the usual consultative process of a government measure and represents a particularly shabby manoeuvre by the DTI and interested parties.
That has already been mentioned, so I will not dwell on it. The measure erodes all the excellent work carried out over

the years by a successful public service and the consultation process has been less than adequate. That is not a good policy to adopt.

Ms. Abbott: The key point is that the Bill is a shabby measure. When we look at the original Eden report, as most Opposition Members have done, we find that one of the recommendations was about a move away from self-regulation of the serving of beer towards some sort of inspection of beer measures. The report says:
We recommend implementation of s. 19 of the 1979 Act on the measurement of beer or cider.
To avoid the debate about whether publicans should have any sort of inspection of control of the pouring of beer and to allow them to continue to self-regulate it is one of the reasons for this shabby private Member's Bill being introduced. One of the other recommendations in the Eden report—

Madam Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a long intervention from the hon. Lady.

Ms. Abbott: Let me just mention one recommendation. It says:
We recommend that the whole field of measurement be reviewed to establish a rational approach to legal control; the Weights and Measures acts cover only part of the field.
That would avoid—

Madam Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady had a good crack of the whip this morning and she is taking a long time now in interventions.

Mr. Cohen: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I will not go down that road, except to say that when talking about drinks such as beer and wines, it is a case of "Cheers" for the manufacturers but not much in the way of cheer for the consumer.
The Consumers Association has said that it was not consulted and is very much against many aspects of the Bill. I have quoted what local authorities have said and shall continue to do so. They have said that they have not been properly consulted and that they are against the Bill. There has not been a good consultation process, but such consultation as there has been has elicited a hostile response to the clause. The Committee should take that properly into account. The letter from Cleveland county also says:
The bill gives wide powers to the Minister who will make regulations through central agencies. The bill states that local authority manpower will be reduced. The inspectorate role will be transferred to central government.
That is the point about centralisation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred earlier. He mentioned the provision for "an authorised person" to act as an inspector. I believe that the wording is immensely lax. An authorised person could, bluntly, be the agent of the manufacturer, repairer or installer. That provision certainly erodes the role of the independent inspector.
My hon. Friend also rightly referred to the centralisation of power in the Secretary of State. The Government are so dogmatic in their hostility to local authorities; they cut them back at every turn. Even when authorities are playing a good role, the Government cut them back. The Secretary of State, in this case, will take away the high standard role performed by inspectors for local authorities and vest the authority in himself. The Secretary of State will not be able to perform the same role


as that carried out by little local authorities up and down the country. He cannot perform the same effective role as people on the ground floor in the local authority. Thus, the service will be worse and more open to abuse, as well as being less democratic. That action is designed to take away powers as well as jobs from local authorities. The county of Cleveland is quite right on that point. Its letter states:
It selectively implements the Eden Report.
That point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) in her intervention. The letter continues
it undermines the role of local authorities in consumer protection. Eden advocated a statutory duty for local authorities to inspect weighing equipment at reasonable intervals which the Minister and Mr. Wiggin have ignored.
Absolutely essential to the Eden committee was the point of a statutory duty for local authorities to inspect equipment. The idea was to strengthen their hand. Had the hon. Gentleman wanted to introduce a measure that contained all the rest of the Eden committee's recommendations and was a Garden of Eden for industry, at least he should have included the statutory duty also recommended by the Eden committee, because that would have protected consumers by establishing the role of local authorities to protect them. It was wrong to ignore that recommendation. The letter continues:
It substitutes self-regulation for independent check in a period when it is demonstrable that consumers require statutory protection enforced by independent inspection. This is the chief lesson of current food hygiene difficulties.
That independence is vital, but will be eroded as a result of the Bill.
As I have said in interventions, not only the county of Cleveland and Labour authorities object to this clause; there are objections right across the board. I have a letter from the London borough of Sutton, signed by the director of housing, health and consumer services. A copy was sent to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). The letter states:
the Bill appears to be an extract of only those aspects of the Eden Committee recommendations which are of interest to the trade. The package of proposals recommended by the Eden Committee and negotiated by local authorities and the Department of Trade and Industry included a number of checks and balances in moving to a radically new system designed to protect the consumer and retailer purchaser. The present Bill takes no account of these arrangements and agreements. The Bill transfers all control powers from local authorities to the Secretary of State, with no statutory obligation to consult local Weights and Measures Authorities, and indeed there is an absence of adequate safeguards and sanctions to prevent improper use of the power to self-verify and/or abuse the licensing system.
That is a scathing comment by a Conservative-controlled London borough on the Bill's proposals.

Mr. Bermingham: Do not all these objections, across the board, come from all shades of political opinion and all parts of the country, showing how widespread is the opposition to the Bill?

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right. That is shown also in the thick document from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which seeks to put right clause after clause. We have already referred to the Consumers Association.
No one has yet mentioned heavy lorries, and the use of weighbridges. Parliament has been standing out against the Common Market, which wants to allow heavier lorries on our roads. I suspect that the Government will cave in in 1992 and these increasingly heavy juggernauts will destroy our roads. However, there is a danger that a weighbridge operator, producer or manufacturer could appoint as the authorised officer somebody who is sympathetic to the Common Market suggestion that we should have heavier lorries, and who will turn a blind eye to any deficiencies in the weighbridge facilities. Despite our opposition to them, we shall get these heavier lorries because of insufficient inspection.
The Spitalfields market is being relocated in my constituency, and we are trying to have a weighbridge installed there, partly to ensure that overweight lorries do not go to the market, and partly because overweight lorries already thunder through Leyton. The police, the local authority and others could use the weighbridge, but if it is not accurate because it is not in the interests of the manufacturers, repairers or installers that it should be, those efforts to get the weighbridge will be wasted.
What will happen if, as a result of this clause, the authorised person is appointed by the traders? It will not be in their interests to prosecute their suppliers. That loophole could ruin an advantageous process. There should be weighbridges all over London and other large cities to keep heavy lorries out. That should be strictly enforced by the local authority and proper standards officers. If the interests of those who become authorised persons do not lie in enforcing those standards, a dangerous loophole will result.
Local authorities need more resources to carry out this independent role and to have a statutory duty to inspect at reasonable intervals equipment in use for trade. I would favour local authorities having more power to ensure that consumers get a fair deal. The whole weights and measures issue is about checks and balances. I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and I understand his motivation, but the benefits must be balanced so that consumers are protected. That is what is missing in the Bill, which is the terrible mistake.

Mr. Wiggin: I appreciate that some trading standards officers may have approached the hon. Gentleman, but I should tell him, especially as he has only recently taken an interest in the Bill, that the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, which is the trading standards officers' organisation, agreed, after its discussions with me and after I agreed to amend the Bill, that the Bill should proceed. Therefore, if individual trading standards officers are concerned about the Bill, I believe that we can satisfy them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not for a moment consider that that institute would approve of a Bill that is likely to have the effects described by him.

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman, in common with many other hon. Members, has a honeyed tongue and I am sure that he was able to persuade the institute to support the Bill. What did he say to it about consumers? Did he repeat what his hon. Friend the Minister said, which was that the part of the Eden report concerning consumers could be considered by Parliament in the future once this Bill is out of the way?

Mr. Wiggin: indicated assent—

Mr. Cohen: That may be so, but there is considerable doubt about whether there will be a subsequent Bill. We have already waited five years. Would the institute be so pleased with the Bill if it got the impression that there would not be another Bill that benefited consumers? I believe that the most likely course is that no such subsequent Bill will be introduced. Industry is pushing the Government to introduce Bills such as this, and consumer interests come way down the order. I suspect that the institute would not be so keen if it realised that that was the reality.
We need a system of proper checks and balances between the consumer and industry. Hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have done a good job in applying parliamentary scrutiny. We should think again and bring forward something that protects consumers. That is why I oppose the clause.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The one thing that the Bill forgets is that we live in changing times and that the method of measurement and the types of scales used by the Government change as the days change—

Mr. Forth: That is what the Bill is all about.

Mr. Bermingham: I note the Minister's prompt response. I wonder how soon we will have television cameras in here so that people can see the sartorial elegance of the Minister today in his red shirt, which no doubt reflects the victory at the Vale of Glamorgan.
Times are changing when it comes to weights and measures, but, regrettably, the Bill is not designed to meet such changes.

Mr. Wiggin: It is.

Mr. Bermingham: It is not because it is moving towards self-verification. That may make the Minister smile—it must be one piece of humour in what is an otherwise sad day. If we have a process of self-verification, a series of problems is created. First, if the only person to verify the machine is the manufacturer, when the machine goes wrong, as undoubtedly machines sometimes do—[Interruption.] I appreciate that the Minister is displaying his usual good manners by talking out loud while others are speaking. I had hoped to catch his eye as his attention to the subject may assist the House. He may be able to intervene from time to time and correct us if we go wrong. He has been remarkably silent in the past two hours—

Mr. Forth: Five hours.

Mr. Bermingham: The Minister has sat silent for five hours. That must be a record. Someone has managed to shut this Minister up for five solid hours. The House should repeat this Committee week in, week out, as that would be to the benefit of the consumer in the long run.
Much of the repair work will be done not only on weighing scales. The Bill is about not only weighing scales but all sorts of machines. Bar coding machines have already been mentioned, as have other electronic weighing devices. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made a point about difficulties with weighbridges. There are numerous other types of measuring devices.
I take this opportunity of reminding the Committee that the argument started not with Magna Carta but with the grain mountains in ancient Egypt and the arguments with the merchants. The argument about who shall check

the weights, and who shall verify the checkers of the weights, is as old as that—and it is a long argument.
The difficulty arises with the question of repair and maintenance. It is all very well major manufacturers saying, "If you buy our weighing scales, we offer an after-sales and repair service," but that may be of no value to the small corner shopkeeper whose scales break down. That shopkeeper knows the risks that he runs if he gives short weight, and that a prosecution may be brought against him.—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are at it again, Miss Boothroyd. This time it is the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) who is causing the noise, but let us not worry about that.
At present, the small corner shopkeeper can telephone a local repairman, who will come along to fix the scales, which the inspector can then verify. However, if that shopkeeper is wholly dependent upon a major manufacturer's repair service, he may find that his weighing equipment is not repaired as soon as he wants.

Mr. Corbyn: Having just returned to the Chamber, I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but it occurs to me that it would be wrong for manufacturers to be solely responsible for the fine determination of the accuracy of their weighing equipment. If they are, they will have a vested interest. What is needed is an independent, non-privatised, public body of integrity responsible for examining all weighing and measuring equipment. Weights and measures legislation was introduced in the first place to protect the consumer against being ripped off by unscrupulous vendors or by the use of inaccurate equipment.

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. At the heart of the argument on clause 2 is who should verify whether or not a weighing machine is accurate. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare says that a recognised manufacturer with a large enough turnover, or a new manufacturer who is large enough and who wants to join the club, will be permitted to verify its own machines and that there will be no need for independent inspections.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend rushes over the question I wanted him to answer. Another point that occurs to me concerns people wanting to enter into the manufacturing of precision weighing and measuring equipment. There are firms in my own constituency that manufacture some precision equipment of that kind. How will a new firm setting up to manufacture precision weighing or measuring equipment fit into the grand scheme of things as provided by the Bill? Will it be ousted by a cartel of major manufacturers preventing any new manufacturer entering the market?

Mr. Bermingham: If such a firm were unacceptable to the existing manufacturers, it would have to operate outside them and be subject to the old local authority inspection system. That may make the firm less competitive, which is a disadvantage that the Bill creates and which does not exist at present. Under the present law, all measuring and weighing machines are verified by trading standards officers who are non-partisan and completely independent. That is the beauty of the existing system, and it is why the trading standards officer in my constituency contacted me about the Bill. That is why I,


along with many of my hon. Friends, remain utterly opposed to clause 2 and hope that if a Division is called the Committee will vote against it.
The test is very simple: do we believe in independent verification or in self-verification? If we believe in independent verification—the same verifier for all, regardless of manufacture or bearer—there may be a chance of some equality being applied to the test of verification. If, on the other hand, we leave it to the major manufacturers, what will happen to the newcomers—as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) pointed out—
It being half-past Two o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report progress; to sit again on Friday 12 May.

Private Members' Bills

INTERNATIONAL PARLIAMENTARY ORGANISATIONS (REGISTRATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment, read the Third time and passed.

RIGHT OF SILENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

ABORTION (AMENDMENT OF GROUNDS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.

ROAD TRAFFIC (BREATH TESTS) BILL

Order read for resumed adjourned debate on Question—[24 February]—That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.

SCARCE RESOURCES (CONSERVATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

AMUSEMENT MACHINES (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.

EMPTY PROPERTY AND COMMUNITY AID BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.

ABORTION (TREATMENT OF NON-RESIDENT WOMEN) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.

ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.

HARE COURSING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.

NET BOOK AGREEMENT (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.

ABORTION (FINANCIAL BENEFITS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 June.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of Order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May we know which hon. Member objected to my Bill? I was not sure who it was, and I should he grateful if you could let me know.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not the business of the Chair to inform hon. Members of objections. I am sure that the hon. Member is alert enough to work that out for himself.

SAFETY IN CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUNDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.

ABORTION (RIGHTS OF ANCILLARY WORKERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.

PROTECTION OF RESIDENTS IN RETIREMENT HOMES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 May.

INSTALLATION OF SMOKE DETECTORS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

REQUIREMENTS OF WRITING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.

ANIMAL PROTECTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.

ABORTION (RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.

FIRE SAFETY INFORMATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.

RIDERS OF EQUINE ANIMALS (WEARING OF PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.

AGE OF LEGAL CAPACITY (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 8th May—

(1) if proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. John Wakeham relating to Dock Work Bill (Allocation of Time) have not been concluded before Seven o'clock, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour shall stand over until the conclusion of such proceedings; and
(2) the Private Business may be proceeded with, though opposed, for five hours after it has been entered upon.

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 10th May, the Motion in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Income Tax may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon: and if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at the end of that period, Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Palace of Julius Agricola

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. Tony Banks: This Adjournment debate is about an exceedingly important national issue. The title of the debate
safeguarding the site of the Palace of Julius Agricola, London
is not entirely accurate. The site in question lies within the area identified in the 1960s as the Roman Huggin hill bath site. It is along the Upper Thames street, but in Roman times it was located on the Thames waterfront.
I am reliably informed that the building was probably the largest public baths complex in Roman London and that it was constructed around 80 AD, during the time of Julius Agricola, the Roman governor of Britain. The complex used a highly sophisticated heating system. I have been informed, quite interestingly, that such a system was not seen again in London until the 19th century. One of the archaeologists to whom I spoke said that London had to wait until the advent of the London county council before public baths on the scale and sophistication of these Roman baths were once again constructed in London.
The baths complex stretches under Dominant house—the part that we are discussing today—and continues under Fur Trade house, the adjacent building which is due to be redeveloped within the next 18 to 24 months.
Early in 1986 the corporation of London received a planning application to redevelop Dominant house, of which it is the freeholder. Modifications were made to the original proposals as the corporation mistakenly believed that the site had already been scheduled. Scheduling was hurriedly approved in June 1986, in advance of conditional planning permission which was granted in July of that year.
The scheduling recommended by English Heritage, the popular title of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, said that the caldarium in the courtyard area between Dominant house and Huggin hill was very well preserved, with walls over 2 m high. The bath house remains under Dominant house itself were thought to be seriously damaged during the 1965 building operation. That wrong judgment was later corrected, but I suspect that in that particular error we see many of the seeds of the complications and the confusions that arose later.
The site's scheduled status having been established, conditional planning permission was given subject to the scheduled monument being adequately protected and preserved and made accessible to members of the public. Subsequent discussions between the corporation planning department, English Heritage and the developers failed to agree on a means of displaying any part of the site. Neither the City nor the Hammerson group, the developers, were willing to undertake the maintenance, and, unfortunately, English Heritage was unable to do so.
The City corporation, however, insisted that revised plans be approved by the Court of Common Council and English Heritage before any works were begun, if further excavations proved archaeologically significant. In 1988 the archaeologists carried out a series of trial works and it was established that the monument was in excellent condition and that the construction of Dominant house

had caused very little damage. Originally it had been thought that the 1965 construction had seriously damaged the site.
English Heritage then wrote to Hammerson's architect on 7 September 1988 saying that the site was
a major archaeological site of national importance, and one where the implications of the proposed new development deserve the fullest consideration in the light of the preliminary archaeological investigation.
The letter continued
The Museum of London's work within the loading bay indicates that there are exceptionally deep and complex archaeological deposits including several phases of Roman building.
Long discussions then took place between the Museum of London and Hammerson throughout the latter part of last year as they attempted to agree a level of funding for the major excavations and a timescale.
On 22 December 1988 the Department of the Environment granted the developers scheduled monument consent allowing excavation for a period up to six months from the date work was begun. That is when the real error was made and when the confusion started. I remind the House that English Heritage first thought that the site had been extensively damaged. It then discovered that it had not been damaged and was a site of national significance. Some experts are now saying that it is one of the most impressive Roman sites in northern Europe. At that point everyone should have stopped and reflected and considered precisely what needed to be done. Unfortunately, that did not happen. It appears that the Department of the Environment, presumably on the advice of English Heritage, gave scheduled monument consent to the developers, which, if I understand the wording correctly, is a rather nice way of saying that they could knock it down.
The Museum of London began work on 3 January this year, with an agreement to get off the site by 31 May. That is why this Adjournment debate is so important. We are now only a few weeks away from the destruction of a Roman site unequalled in preservation, quality and size anywhere in London, yet the site represents only 20 per cent. of the total complex.
It appears that destruction is absolutely assured unless the Minister takes decisive political action now. I know that she has visited the site, and we are all grateful for that. I am quite sure that she will be as impressed as I was and as everyone else who has seen the site. I believe that her praises will be proclaimed throughout the House if she can devise a formula to save those wonderful Roman remains. There is no excuse for not saving them. A whole range of options have been presented to the Government and to the other bodies concerned.
Technically speaking, English Heritage gave such appalling advice to Ministers that if scheduled monument consent were now to be revoked, English Heritage is likely to be liable to pay compensation to the Hammerson property development group. That would be unrealistic. I am also worried that Hammerson is trying it on by claiming compensation as high as £7 million. English Heritage has only about £10 million for archaeological work throughout the country. Hammerson's is a very wealthy property organisation. It could do its corporate image a great deal of good if it were to ride in like a white knight and save the site. Conversely it will attract a great deal of public odium if it persists in destroying the site after 31 May this year.
The City of London could intervene. It could save the site by withdrawing planning consent or insisting that the site be preserved in a revised Hammerson development project. There is a number of ways to do that. It could offer the Hammerson group some form of planning gain. It should do something about it. It is scandalous to think that in the City's 800th anniversary—its heritage year—it seems unwilling to lift a finger to save an archaeological jewel nearly 2,000 years old.
Why has part II of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 never been extended to cover the City of London? If any area of the country cries out for extension of that Act, it is the City of London. If part II were extended, it would give some additional protection to sites such as Huggin Hill. Perhaps I am just a cynical old politician but I suspect that the City does not want that extension because it might obstruct the highly profitable deals that it does with property speculators within the square mile.
The property speculators, particularly Hammerson property group, are knocking down Dominant house, which has been there only since 1965. It was a speculative office block and it is being knocked down to build yet another speculative office block. That is just what we need in the City of London. It will probably last another 20 or 25 years before being knocked down to make way for yet another speculative office block. In order to build the new block, the Hammerson group is ready to destroy a vital part of our national history.
The Roman history presented by the Huggin Hill complex belongs to the nation as a whole. It is our history, not Hammerson's property, and we have to move to protect ii. Whatever legal rights the property group might have, it has no moral right to destroy that site. I do not see why a bunch of property speculators, behaving like up-market Arthur Daleys should be allowed to put their wretched profits before our history.
Whatever else emerges from this issue, Parliament must take action to prevent such a potential disaster from occurring in the future. I shall make a few suggestions to the Minister in that respect. We need new legislation to plug the obvious gaps that the case has revealed. It should be compulsory for any developer proposing work in areas designated to be of national archaeological significance—that must be an area such as the City of London—to carry out, at their own expense, a full archaeological survey before the planning authority even considers granting outline planning consent.
If sites of national significance are uncovered, the Government, on behalf of the nation, should provide the necessary protection and funding. English Heritage has nothing in the way of funds. A total of £10 million does not go far when one is having to look after the archaeology of the entire country. In this case, English Heritage has been found wanting. It does not have the resources to rectify its appalling mistake.
I do not believe that any other country in Europe—not even Albania, for God's sake—would be as irresponsible as Britain with regard to its historic monuments. If between them, the Government, English Heritage, The City and Hammerson fail to save this wonderful historic and unique Roman site at Huggin Hill, they will stand condemned of perpetrating an act of criminal folly. They will have acted like true Vandals of old.
I have a lot of time for the Minister. I know that she will not let me down because I can see it in her face. The

Minister cannot and must not allow the site to be destroyed. I invite her now to say what action she proposes to take. If she initiates action to save the site, she will deserve the country's thanks and I will be the first one in the House to lead the applause. If she fails, she must take her share of the blame which present and future generations will attach to her. The opportunity is hers and I hope that she will grasp it with both hands.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for raising this extremely important subject. I am well aware of the close interest he has shown in the site, which, as he said, I had an opportunity to visit.
I should like to mention the local Member of Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who has a particular knowledge and interest in the subject. He studied Agricola as a special subject for his university degree. He is also chairman of the standing conference of archaeological unit managers and the British Property Federation group, which has played an important part in these matters.
I should like to make some general remarks before dealing with the specific matters raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. Archaeological remains have always excited much interest and wonder. Our ancestors saw Stonehenge as the work of giants or magicians because they could not conceive that such great stones could have been erected by mortal men.
The growth of archaeology as a scientific discipline over the past century or so means that specialists can tell us much more. They can analyse structures, buildings and artefacts, from which we can learn an increasing amount about our forefathers, their technology, their way of life, their housing and trading contacts. It is no surprise that at the Museum of London, which has played such a part in these matters, up to 400 archaeologists a year work and look at the remains and ruins around the area.
Archaeology is important to our shared understanding of the past and the knowledge that it gives us, but there is an inevitable conflict, to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West referred. As modern archaeological methods enable us to retrieve ever more information, so modern building methods, with deep foundations, mean that we are more likely to disturb or destroy archaeological remains as we develop our contemporary civilisation. Further, we are more aware of what we are destroying.
Attention is always paid to how much we should preserve. Do we want London to be a modern, living city or a square mile of archaeological remains? That is a difficult question. The past informs the present, but we cannot have a present without a future.
There are many encouraging signs. Over the past few years, archaeologists and developers have increasingly been working together, gaining a better understanding of each other's works. Only recently, another site at York caused much interest. It was thought to be the palace of Septimus Severus, and I also visited that site. I am glad to say that from that a success story has emerged. As a result of goodwill and co-operation, developers have agreed to redesign foundations to preserve the archaeology. As the


hon. Member for Newham, North-West rightly said, a formula must be devised to make that happen in as many places as possible.
Only last week I had an opportunity to address a conference organised by the British Property Federation and the standing conference of archaeological unit managers. Those organisations have produced a valuable code of practice, which has done much to reduce conflicts between archaeologists and developers. I was encouraged to see how the partnership is increasingly working between the two sides. Of course consensus and co-operation is never as newsworthy as conflict, but about £14 million a year is provided voluntarily by developers to help finance archaeological discovery. Co-operation and discussion are essential.
The site has been referred to as the palace of Julius Agricola, and it may be that my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South will be able to offer further substantiation of that. There is disagreement among specialists about the precise ownership of the original building. I am advised that the quality of the remains suggests that the building was designed for an official of high standing. It appears to have been built towards the end of the first century AD but demolished by the Romans 200 years later.
The site, as the hon. Gentleman said, was identified in the 1960s from excavation before redevelopment, which revealed parts of an extensive Roman bath complex, much of which was in a good state of preservation. It was scheduled in 1986. Scheduling, as the House well knows, means that a monument is identified as being of national importance. It does not necessarily mean that a site must be preserved for all time, but it means that consent must be sought from the Secretary of State before any works take place which would disturb the monument and even before repairs to a standing monument. It is a stringent procedure which gives a full opportunity for all the implications to be considered before a decision is made and allows for different options of preservation, either in situ or by record, to be made in the light of the circumstances of the case.
In 1986, we received an application to demolish Dominant house and to erect a new office block on the site. Before deciding on the consent, we had to make an evaluation. We required the evaluation to enable us to assess, with the benefit of fuller knowledge, the effect of the development on the remains. That evaluation, carried out by the Museum of London over three months in 1988, suggested that the remains on the development site in the trial area had already been damaged by building in the 1960s and by a large Victorian sewer.
On that basis, English Heritage advised that preservation by record would be an adequate response. Some parts of the site were to be preserved by bridging over them. The scheduled monument consent was therefore granted in December 1988, subject to a condition that up to six months should be allowed for archaeological investigation by the Museum of London, which had done the original assessment, before the development could proceed. It was given on the best information available at the time and in good faith. It is that archaeological investigation required by the consent which is taking place, funded by the developers to the tune of £500,000, and

which has revealed remains which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, are more extensive and better preserved than the previous evaluation had suggested. This has led to the genuine dilemma that is being faced.
Intensive discussions have been taking place between the different parties involved to consider the possible options. Indeed, such discussions are going on even as we speak. I fully endorse this approach. I have said that I share the hon. Gentleman's hope and aspiration that we should be able to devise a formula. I have made it clear that it is essential that the developers and archaeologists keep talking. Clearly, a negotiated solution that enables the remains to be preserved while allowing the developers to proceed with their office block would be the ideal solution which would satisfy the interests of both sides as well as the public.
The remains under Dominant house are only a small proportion—some 20 per cent.—of the total site. The remainder of the site, 80 per cent., lies beneath adjoining buildings and is not currently under threat. I assure the House that any application for scheduled monument consent which affected the remainder of the site would be considered extremely carefully. Indeed, the intensive recording of this site which has been taking place in recent months and which the hon. Gentleman and I visited will contribute to a wider understanding of the rest of the remains, whatever the outcome.
I appreciate that preservation by record does not so easily satisfy the genuine and legitimate interest of the public as would preservation of the remains or even their public display, but it ensures that the knowledge which they represent is recorded and preserved. We know much more about Roman London now than we did before this excavation, and that is a tangible gain which will not be lost.
It is important to point out that this site is not the only civil Roman bath site even in the City of London. Another major scheduled Roman bath complex lies only about half a mile away, in Lower Thames street—which is probably well known to my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South—and is well preserved in the basement of an office building, where a major programme of conservation is about to start. There are other complexes elsewhere, such as the well-known ones at Bath, which I visited last year, those at Wroxeter and at Jewry hill, Leicester, both in guardianships to English Heritage, others at Exeter and the Roman palace of Fishbourne.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister not accept that the expert advice now available, which was not, unfortunately, available at the time, suggests that this complex is the most remarkable in this country notwithstanding the fact that there are other sites close to it? That does not detract from the significance of the site.

Mrs. Bottomley: Much as I applaud the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, I cannot claim that our expert advisers have suggested that the site is of quite such unique value. I am not in any way trying to detract from the site's importance, but there are other sites and, as archaeologists will know, there are always disagreements and debates about how one find can be weighed against another.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the role of the City of London to revise planning consent. That is primarily a matter for the City of London, as the local planning


authority, and I know that it has been involved in discussions. Similarly, the hon. Gentleman talked about requiring developers compulsorily to finance archaeology. The developers are already providing £14 million for archaeology on top of the £7 million—sizeable figures—provided by English Heritage. We believe that, in general, the voluntary principle is working well in these matters.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to designation as an area of archaeological importance. The AAI provision of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 provides a mandatory basis for up to four and half months of archaeological investigation before development may proceed. It does not entail a financial commitment. On scheduled sites, such as this, we can already impose conditions requiring archaeological investigation and, of course, in this case we required six months. As has been said, the developers helped to finance that. The AM provisions do not provide the money and do not require preservation. We may or may not have got those provisions right. English Heritage has been reviewing their operation for us and we have recently received its advice, which we shall be considering carefully in the light of this and other cases. As the provisions stand, they would not have made a difference to this case.
We have put the case into context. The hon. Gentleman referred to revoking the consent. Revocation would lead to a requirement for English Heritage to pay compensation for any costs incurred that are made abortive by the revocation. It would be costly—probably running to several million pounds. Yet English Heritage's budget for

archaeology in the whole country last year was £7 million. The work of English Heritage includes such important and varied projects as the Raunds project, studying a multi-period landscape in Northamptonshire, examination of an early prehistoric site at Boxgrove and an ongoing study at Fishergate in York of mixed Roman, Viking and mediaeval remains. Priorities have to be set and decisions taken.
Preliminary figures suggest that the cost of redesigning the basement of Dominant house would be extremely costly and would run into several million pounds.

Mr. Banks: They can afford it.

Mrs. Bottomley: It raises important principles and there is the question of the ongoing relationship between developers and archaeologists. As I made clear, discussions are continuing between all the parties involved and in consultation with English Heritage, our adviser on such matters. I shall be watching developments carefully. I fully applaud and appreciate the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the subject. As Minister with responsibility for heritage, it is all too rare that I have the opportunity to discuss such matters in the House. As we move forward at a fast rate of change, all of us appreciate the importance of studying our past, of archaeology and of our heritage. Like him, I very much hope that a way can be found to accommodate all the interests at the site.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Three o'clock